DOCUMENT RESUME

:1, ED 213 724 TM 810 925

AUTHOR Yurchak, Mary Jane; Stixt SusanTITLE '- Evaluating Title I Parent Education Programs.INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY.PUB DATENOTE .

'Huron Inst., Cambridge, Mass.'-Department of Education, Washington, D.C.Dec 80110p.

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Child Rearing; Early Childhood Education; *ParentEducation; Parent School Relationship; *ParentStudent Relationship; Preschool Children; *ProgramEvaluation; Program Improvement; *Teachers

IDENTIFIERS ;, *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I

EDRS PRICE°DESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACTThis booklet describes the goals and organization of

many early childhbod Title I (ECT-I) parent programs and suggests'evaluation methods. The information is intended for program planners,evaluation personnel, And teachers. Only activities that invqlveparents s-in the education of thei il so as to improve his academiccompetence afe diicussed. Th4 met if parent education aredifficult to define. Many parents have access to successful childrearing information, but are unable to implement these ideas. Thereis also no evidence of a causal relationship betweewspecificpakental and child behavior. Most.progiams of parent participationprovide joilyt activities to develop a child's language and cognitiveskilh s. Othrr programs emphasize the process of learning as moreimportant than thevcOntint. These programs encourage parents.to allowexploration in a sal% and stimulating environment. A multi-faceted.evaluatiOn $trategy is necessary which is matched to the program.Evaluationshodld focus on the program, not the parents. Instrumentsshould be short,,simple, and readily analyzed to yield informationuseful for "program improvement. Parents should be involved inplanning,' implementing and ellhluating their Own programs. (DWH)

z

4

-*******t***** ************t**A***.*******4,*****************************

Reproductio s supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom'the original document.

************************,i*****4********************************.********2

The Huron Institute

rJ

*qc3

.<-

rf

SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE

The ERIC Facility has assignedthis document for processingTO

in our judgement, this documentis also of Interest to the clearing.houses noted to the right Index-ing should reflect their specialpoints of view

EVALUAT ING T FELE I

PAM NT T DUCATI ON l' ROGRA,\ IS

By Mary Jane 's'urchak and SITSail St1

C

.!U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER IERICI/ This document has been reproduced as

received fro r 'the person or organization'.onginanng itMinor changes have been made to Improve

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu

meet do not necessanlysrePresent official NIE

position or policy

1 p

1

r

THE HURON INSTITUTE 123 MOUNT AUBURN STREET, CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02138

, ,

O

41.

EVALUATING TITLE 4 PARENT

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

'December 1980

I

Mary Jane Yurchak and Susan StixThe Huron Institute123 Mt. Auburn Street

Cambridge, Masschusetts 02138

FOREWORD

This booklet has been prepared Zpart of a project sponsored by the

United States Education Repartment (USED) on evaluation in early childhood

Title I (ECT-I) programs. It is one of a series of resource books developed

in response to concerns expressed by state and local personneliiabout early

childhood Title I prograMs. The series describes an array of diverse

evaluation activities and outlines hoW each of these might contribute to

1

improving local programs. The series rev? olves around a set of questions:

Who will use the evaluation'results?

What kinds of information are users likely to find most helpful?

In what ways might this information ail], in program improvement?

Are the potential benefits substantial enough to'jisify the cost4nd effort of evaluation? /

. .

Together, the resource books address a range of issues relevii)to the

evaluation of early childhood programs for educationally disadvantaged.. ---) .

children. The series comprises the following volumes:

Evaluating Title I Early Childhood Hograms:. An Overview

Assessment in Early Childhood Education

.Short-Term Impact EvaluatiOn of Early.Childhood Title I Programs

4

An Introduction to the ValuerAdded Model and Its Use in Short-Term

Impact Assessment ,

.

Evaluation Approaches: A Focus.on Improving Early Childhood Title

I Programs

Longitudinal Evaluattioji Systems for Early Childhood Title I Programs

Evaluating Title I Parent Education Programs

The development of this series follows extensive fieldwork on ECT-I

programs (Yurchak & Bryk, 1979). In the course.of that reseai-Ch, we ,

,

A

1

identified a number of'concerns that SEA and LEA officials ad abdit ECT-I

programs, and the kinds of information that might be helpful in addressing'

.--/

.. .

them. Each resource book in the series thus deals with a specific concern

or set of concerns.

.

The books and the evaluation approaches theydescribe /r 1

t 1.

Ado not, however, constitute a comprehensive evaluation Aystem to be uniformly

applied by all., Our feasibility. analysis (Bryk, Apling,'4 Mathews, 1978)

indicated that such a systeri quld,not efficiently respond to the specificI

.. ,

issues of interest in any,single district at any given time. Rather, LEA

personnel might wish to ditm upon one or more of the approaches we describe,

tailoring theireffort to fit the particular problem confronting them.

Finally, the resource books are not comprehensive technical manuals.

) Their purpose is tokhOlp local school personnel identify issues that might

merit further examination and to guide the choice of suitable evaluation

strategies to address those issues. Additional'information and assistance

in using the''various evaluation strategies are available in the. more techni-

11

cal publications cited at the end of each volume, and from the Technical

Assistance Centers in the ten national regions.

C.

5' ay%

TABLE OF CONTENTS

=

0

Page

FOREWORp ..

LIST OUTGURES vii

I.' . INTR9DUCTION 1

II. .TITLE ITROGRAMS FOR PARENTS OF YOUNG CHILDREN 5 CRatiOnale, for Programs for Parents of Young Children

Title I Parent Programs.ImpliCations for Evaluation ,)

I. PLANNING AN EVALUATION

What Do You Want To Know?What Role Will-Parents Play?

_Wha About'A Control or COmparison Group?,

17'

IV. FAMILY EDUCATION PLANS ?,

25'

AI'.

V PROGRAM EVALUATION --... 31

-,,-

Techniques for Gathering Descriptive InformationTechniclUes for Measuring Short-Term Imp

Techniques.foy Measuring Long-Term Impact-anSustained_ Effects

P Techniques for Linking Progrim PActice to Outcome

)uI. 'SUMMARY, .59

NOTES ON SOURCES OF FUR 'HER INFORMATION 65

General 8OUrZes'Program EvaluationObservationLinking Program to OutcomeOther Sources of Informatii.on

,Test Coflection

APPENDIX, . .13. .

-.''Instruments to Me ure Parent Education

,

/

. ..RE1ERENCES

..-.!`g.

10.7

4 :

- 0

al

t,

N.

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1 - Examples of Goals foi Parent Involvement

2 Parent Interest Surve9sForm 1 28

3, ESEA Title I Parent Activity Information 32

4 Parent-School Contacts

5 Examples of Questionnaire for Parents 37

ti

.

1 .1111.

f, vi-RiioDucTioN,

This resource book briefly discusses the. issues and ehallenges of evalu-

ating Title I programs for the parents of young children. It describes the

goals and organization of-many early childhood Title I (ECT-I)'parent programs

and presents various ways of valuating them. The booklet is intended'for

program planners, evaluation per onnel, and teachers. Some of those persons

- \

will already know something of Title I evaluation bust may not be familiar with

.eke special issues of evaluating parent programs., Others pay be knowledgeable

about ppgrams,for.parents but unaware of ways in which evaluation can be used

tb improve what they are doing..

The book is organized into six chapters. Chapter II explains the ration- t

ales for programs for the parents of young'chirdren and describes several' types

of program currently funded under Title I. In Chapter III we discuss evalua-

tion plans: why evaluation might be done and,wh3t,decisiohs it might inform.

We also exatine.iSsues of technical quality and point out why expectations

for evaluations of programs for parents must b,e more modest than those for

evaluation1 of other typeS of program. In Chapter IV we discuss meeting in-,

'dividual needs and-assessing individugrowth of parents, and Chapter V.

presents some techniques for gathering descriptive information about programs

and for evaluating their effectivehess. In the last chapter' Je summarize

some"of the challengirig issues involved in evaluating programs for-parents.

Finally, we provide references to sources of further information on the4

topics treated in this resource book.

2A few general comments are in order. First, we treat here only those

activities thatinvolve parents in the education of their child so as to

improve that child's academic competence. More comprehensive activities.

4,

t.

0.

o

t

-2-

for examDle, job training or personal counseling, such as in the Follow

Through supplementary training component of the Child and Family Resource,

Programare often an important part of parent involvement; however, as they

are beyond the scope of programs currently aflOwed by Title I, they are

omitted from our discussten.

Second, this book--like all the resource books in the series--stresses

the usefulness of evaluation to LEA decision making, 1-1(1 particularly for

purposes of program management and improvement. If the evaluation of pro-

grams for parents can reduce uncertainties and help decision makersAn their

tasks, it is well worth pursuing. 'If it cannot, it might better be left

undone.

of parent programs, we sought information on evaluation techniques from many

'nurces. First we consulted academicians and practitioners particularly _

Finally, experts agree tha'E for reasons both methodological and ethical,

evaluating programs for parents presents special challenges. In ouTurvey

kncyledgeable in the area of parent education. Then we examined the useful-,

ness to ECT-I parent progiams the tests of mother-child interaction cited

in the Test Collection of the Educational Testiipg Service. We also conducted4

an ERIC search for parent education programs. We sent 300 letters of inquiry

to all programs identified tiltre, to programs listed in Education Programs

That Work (United States Office of Education, 1978) that include parent com-

ponents, and to programs included in the Interim Handicapped Children's Early

EducationvProgram (HCEEP) Overview and Directory, developed by the BEH (1978).

We received over 100 replies covering a wide range of programs. Most of

these described their parent involvement component, but few specifically

discussed the meamt of evaluating it. Some said they simply did net know1

-3-

how to evaluate programs for parents. Almost all concurred that the task

is particularly difficult. Specifically, many'expressed frustration over

the following:'

The technical quality of available assessment measures

The-difficulty of matching measures` to their program or population,.zzemir

The inability to allow for the particular aptitude-environment-treatment interactions between each parent and the program.

Reluctance to intrude on family privacy.

In spite of these sobering realities, most program personnel remain

committed to and enthusiastic about programs for parents and believe in the

efficacy of their own programs. Moreover, they demonstrate ingenuity and

resourcefulness.in designing ways to evaluate and then improve them. It is

our hope that this book can transmit their ideas and so help resolve the

evaluation dilemmas facing other programs for parents. -

-5-

II.. TITLE I PROGRAMS FOR PARENTS OF YOUNG CHILDREN

One clear-trend in early childhood education since the 1960s has been

increasedemphasis on parent involvement (Haney, et al., 1980;'Datta, 1975).

. Title I () the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1956 (as

amended) has, greatly influenced that trend. In this chapter we briefly e-

view the history,of programoi for parents) the types of programs that have

evolved, and the specific provisions of Title I that determine the nature of.

parent programs under its aegis. Then we consitier the implications of various

approaches to program evaluation.

RATIONALE FOR PROGRAMS FOR PARENTS OF YOUNG CHILDREN

Education programs for parents are not new. Over the years various

programs have aimed at helping parents piomote their,children's moral develop-

ment, emotional and social growth, physical and mental well-being, cognitive

development, and academic achievement.. Most recent efforts have concentrated

on enhancing cognitive skill and academic achievement, particularly among

children of poor families. These activities have come about for three reasons.

First, den preliminary evidence suggested that compensatory preschool educa-4

tion programs alone brought no sustained improvement in children's intellectt 0 ,

or academic performance, program planner's sought' more effective means of in-

tervention for' educationally deprived children than the simple notion of a

year of prekindergarten. Second,'new research findings pointed to the im-

portance of the early 'years of life in stimulating children's curiosity, pro-

pensity_to explore, and later cognitive functioning. They also suggested

that since the role of parents in early child development is crucial, programs

starting during the first years of a child's life might be more effective if

they had intensive parental participation. Finally, increased public demand

11

-6-

that education programs be made accountable to the community,led to provisions1

not only guaranteeing parental rights toplan, review, and evaluate programs,

but, in theory at least, establishing a partnership between parents-and schools

to insure the best educational opportunity for children.

Taken together, these ideas genAated a varietoof/Programs for Parents

of young children. Such programs are built on the supposition that parents,

even more than teachers, can respond appropriately to their chideen and pro-

vide an early and continuing. environment of stimulation, security, and affec-

tion. If some parents fail to provide the necessary support, it ick not through

intent, but because they do not know how. These,parents can be taught the

rudimentsof child development and guided to activities and ways of' iriter-

acting,that will help their childien'learn. Education programs can provide

parents with opporttnities to practice new skills. Moreover,-once the parents

have been adequately instructed, their new knowledge will carry over to other

children in the family, and the family environment will become richer, more

stimuliting, and more appropriate to the develoiment of all its children.

However, there isno clear order of importance in the various rindings

about the way children learn. Nor had it beerishown that there is a singl-

)\.

best way for parents and children to interact or for parents to take part r

in their child's.education. Therefore, there has been a woliferation of

programs, differently organized and with different goals, reflecting dif-

ferent notions on the best way to involve parents. We have identified four

models: the indirect 'information model, the direct instruction,model, theA

resource volunteer model, and a model involving parents as policy makers.

The indirect information model uses program staff to inform the parents4

about the program and the child's progress. Conferences, report cards,

12 A

-7-

it

. general meetings, and information bulletins are'common ways to do this. The

basic assumption 1.1i programs like this isthat4oparents serve best as rein-.

forcers of school learning. The more they know about their child's school

.program the more they can--and will -- support it at home. The second model,

direct instruction,' teaches parents how to instruct their children, although

there is some .64agreement on how this is best done. These parent education

or parent training programs have been variously designed to help parents

understand child development in general', to take account of their own chil-

dren's characteristics, to develop specific skills in instruction or inter-

action, and to provide an "optimal match" between children's ne 'nd'their

education. In these programs parents are both students and teachers, a d

must both learn what to do and transmit that knowledge effectivel o their

children,

A third type of parent program,relies on parent participation in volun-

teer or support activities. Program staff defir.e parents' opportunities--

or responsibilities--for support, including such things af serving as volun-,

teer ads, accompanying the class on trips, raising funds for program use,

and participating in school clean do r construction activittes. Through

parents'- association with school activities, proponents' of these programs

hope to Promote favorable attitudes toward the program that will indirectly

lead to a supportive altitude at home and to improved:school performance.

Finally, many irogrami have tried to involve parents as advisors or

policy makers. Through advisory boards or councils, parents may participate

in planning program modifications and in needs assessment/or evaluation, or

act as advocates for the program within the con=nity or in 'a...larger political

arena.

1^

,

.0. TITLE I PARENT PROGRAMS

Let,us now review the provisions of,4fitle I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act that relate to parent involvement and examine how they are applied

in ECT-I programs: Both the provisions themselves and the ways in which they

are applied have important implications for program evaluation.

Title I requires that Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) involve parents

in two ways: (1) in governance and policy making, and (2) in education programs.

The former takes'place through Parent Advisory CounCils (PACs ),, and ,these are

subject to a number of regulations. Title I legislation and rules.are more9

open about the latter, allowing considerable latitude for local decisions about

the purpoSe, content, and organization of parent participation in education

programs,.

Parent Advisory Councils

Parents Participate in Title I program governance and policy making via

Parent Advisory Councils. Composition of and eligibility for PACs is clearly

specified. Section 125 states that an LEA may receive funds under this title

only if it establishes a Parent Advisory Council for its entire school district

t school.* PAC members must be elected.

and for each project area or ,p

by the parents of children to be served by projects assisted by Title I.

The district PAC must also include representatives of children in schools

eligible Afor but not participating in Title I ppgrams. For project are

or projet'schools in which 75 or more children are served, there are ad-h

ditional requirements as to the size of the PAC, membership, respolikibilify

for electing officers, and frequency of meetings [Sec. 125 (a)].

* An exception is made in cases where not more than one full-time equivalent

staff member is paid with Title I funds, and where not more than 40

students participate in the program [Sec. 125 (a) (B)].

.14

16' .4

the tasks of PACs are more generally stated than is their organization.

Thus Section 125 requires that:

Each local education agency shall give each advisory councilwhich it establishes under subsection (a) responsibility foradvising it in planning for,' and implementation and evaluation.of, its programt and projects assisted tinder this title.

"..

. How these tasks are carried out is determined within liocal education

agencies'.

iIn order to assist PACs with their responsibilities, LEAs must provide

. each PAC member with: the, text of Title I;.111 federal regulations and guide-

issued under or associated with it; all 'appropriate igulations and

guideline; associated with thetitle; andiriany report resulting-from state

or federal auditing, monitoring, or evaluation in the district [Sec. '125 (c)].

To enable PACs to use that information and to function knowledgeably, LEAs. s

-.

.must provide a training program for parents, but the content of that program

is not specified. The legislation states only that the program:

(1) shall be planned in full consultation with the membersof such advisory councils;

i(2) shall provide each memIze*.orf such councilg with appro-

.:

priate materials; and

.(0) may permit the use of funds under this title for ex-penses associated witlr-slich training, including expensesassociated with .the. attendance of such members at training

sessions.[Sec. 125 (d) (b)]

4' How' parents are trained is thus a local metter.s4 .

4, Participation in Program Activities

Two sections of Title'I describe parental participation in educ'ation

programs. Section 124 (1) states:

A. Local education agencies may receive funds under this

title only if parents of children participating im programs0

15

-k0-

assisted under this"seCtibn are permitted to participatein.the establishment of such programs and are informedof and permitted to make recommendations with respect.to the instructional goals of such programs and the prog-ress of the children in such programs, and such parentsare afforded opportunities to assist their children inachieving such goals.

Section 117 (c)/provides for access to information parents need:

E. ,Each local education agency which applies for or re-ceives funds under this 1,i.tle shall make the application

pertinent-documentS' related thereto available to=parents, teachers and other members of the general-public.

However, Ti't4 I does not spell out how information'is to be made available

or how parent are to take part in establishing prOgrams, making recommenda-

tions about rogram goals, evaluating their children's progress; and helping .

3L-

their child en to achieve goals. As a result, LEAs interpret the' provisions

in variojs ays, and parent involvement in Title I takes on all of the aspects

we have d scribed: information sharing, parent education, volunteer work-,

and gove nance. Programs reflect local needs and resources as well as local

adminis rative capabilities. Moreover, in general, programs for parents

changesas'the Childrer,1 grow elder. For the parents of young children, parent

education actitivies tend to be projects, while programs for parents of

older children are often subsumed under the more general activities of PACs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EVALUATION

Because programs for parents are so diverse, they will differ in their

effects on both parents and children. 'Therefore, any attempt to evaluate

aprograM will have to take careful account of its goals. What was done

and how well can be judged only against the backdrop of what was intended.

There are many ways of organizing the goals of Title parent programs.

One Simply way is to consider them in two broad classes: those directed at

16

a.

changing 13-arents knowledge, attitudes, and behavior with respect to their

children's learning; and those designed to change parents'. knowledge, atti-

tudes, and behavior toward school services and personnel.* Figure 1 summa-,

rizes the two goal areas and gives examples of typical objectives in each

Parent education programs concerned with fostering knowledge about child

development and the'learning tasks of 'young childre (Cell A) might instruct

parents on topics such as how to understand age-appropia child behavior,

or teaching techniques. A reasonable subject for instruction would be reading

readiness. Program pergOnriel might describe to parents the various

involved, 'such-as letter recognition, auditory sequencing, and visual scanning;

suggest ways to motivate the child to learn; and finally, provide reading

readiness activities or perhaps easy reading materials.

Programs focusing on parental attitudes toward Children's learning

(Cell B) would help parents to kecognize their child's characteristics and

to develop appropriate expectations of the child. They might try to Make

parents aware of their attitudes and beliefs about their child, perhaps by

role playing or by video- taping simulated parent-child interactions. In

these programs, parents are encouraged to believe that the way they interact

with their children makes a difference to their,children' learning. TheyVare helped to feel more comfortable and secure in their roles as home teacherg

of their children. At the same time, the importance of being readily access

sible to their children and of co veying interest and approval may be stressed.

-\

* There are also programs with goals that go beyond the parental role and

try to meet the personal needs of parents as adults. -Since these are

beyond the scope of activities allowed under Title I, we exclude them

from this discussion.

1.7

-12- .

Goal:

To Produce-Change in

ai'ents'

nowledge

Parents'

Attitudes

4.

Focus

Toward ild

A

To understand thp-,child.'s educa-

tional, emotional, and health (in-cluding nutritional and dental)needs

To know what play material isappropriate at different ages

To know what the child should belearning and how best to helphim learn

To appreciate the child's in-dividual characteristics of tem-perament and learning

To develop realistic and flexibleexpectations of tfit child

14

Toward School

D

To be aware Of services availableand how-to use them-, e.g., referralfor special education

To know what tasks the childsisworking on in school

To,be aware of the provisions ofTitle I and the federal regulationsand guidelines associated with it

To understand and use programevaluation reports in planningprogram activities

To trust school personnel andview themselves as partners ofthe schools in the evaluationprocess

To view themselves as important inthe success of their child's educa-tion

Parents'Behrvior

C

To,adapt behavior--such as verbalbehavior and patterns of respon-siveness, availability, and sup-portiveness--in ways that willpromote the child's growth and

development

To provide appropriate instructionin school readiness activities -

F

To seek appropriate services, e.g.,.referral for special education

To initiate and attend conferenceswith teachers'as appropriate

To participate in PAC Meetings and

other planning,,, implementation,and evaluation activities

To help other parents become in-volved in Title I activities

Figure 1: Examples of foals for Parent Involvement

1.

.Finally, parents are helped to provide material and experiences that are in-

-teresting and, challenging to their child at each stage of development.

Parent education programs in which the main goal is to change the way

parents teach their children (Cell C) usually provide more directive activities.

They show parents how their actions--how they speak and respond to their chil-

dren, and luiw supportive they are--affect,the child. Parents night also be

shown how to use appropriate rewards to reinforce achievement. In addition,

thetse programs instruct parents how to teach their children school readiness

skills- -for example, by demonstrating how to use simple letter games to help

their childrenlWith letter recognition.

Turning now to programs that foels on parental knowledge, attitudes,

and behavior with respect to schools and the educational process, we see

activities of a somewhat different sort. Cell D illustrates the first of

these. Many parents, especially those who come from poverty, have had bad

experiences with public institutions, including the schools. Their perception

of education and schools is colored by feelings and values' that sometimes. ,

preclude effective collaboration. Often the most needy parents are also

Vthe most reluctant to deal directly with school personnel, either .about

their child's education o about more general program issues. The goals of-='.---*

---- many parent education'prog ms therefore include breaking through this re-

serve by giving parents full, easily understood information- about the program:

what it offers, especially as it relates their child; how to reach the

. -

services and personnel that will help; how effective the program has been;

other programs and services; and how to initiate changes that seem desirable.

At the same time, program personnel may seize the. opportunity to acquaint

dk. interested parents with the.provisions of Title I and the associated

(,)

ti

-14-

regulations and guidelines. They may also tell them abput the program evalu-

ation report; and perhaps involve them in evaluation activities..

Closely related to these are 'the goals that fall in Cell E. Many projects

now strive to change parental attitudeg toward the schools.' They ask parent's" -'

to become active advocates, not. only for their own children but in planning

optimal Title I program activities for all eligible children. They try to

develop trust between parents and school personnel, a sense of being partners

working together in the best interests of all children. They'encourage,parents

to,view themselves as important to the successof their child's education.

Finally, in Cell F wt ha've shanges in the wars parents/relate to the

school and the education process. Seeking parent involvement in order to

assure program accountability appears in this domain. Examples of other ob-

)

jectives are: to have parents attend parent-teacher conferences with appro-

priate frequency; to request special services when necessary; to participate

in PAC activities, and attend PAC meetings.

In practice, of course, programs have many goals. While evaluation need

not deal with all of them, it should be a valid assessment of at least some

of the significant ones. Each program must therefore decide which of its

goals are the most iMportant and hence merit attention in evaluation. A .

variety of techniques are available for obtaining the information'needed to 4I

evaluate progress toward those goals and to assess other program facets of

interest, such as the opportunities for parental involvement, parents' reac-

tions to the program and its usefulness, or the short- and long-term effects

of the program on children's learning. These techniques include unobtrusive

measures, parent reports, and rating scales; tests and direct observations;

(teacher ratings, home observations, observation of parent-child interaction);

20

-1S-

and self-study and process evaluation. Which of these are used depends

largelyupon the focus A the evaluaticI..,7

In the.follbwing, we first describ,1 how,to plan an evaluation. We then

discuss the Family Education Plan, whic.I'guides the formulation of program

goals and the assessment of program eff:ts on families. Finally, we examine

the variouS-techniques avail'able for ga:hering the informatiOn needed for

program evaluation.

4

As

41*

I

1

-17-

III. PLANNING AN EVALUATION2 4.

Sometimes good fortune- and good planning combine to per lit programIn

° planners and evaluators te-develop education programs and their evaluations

concurrently. The former clarify program objectives as the utter 'stablish

the best ways to determine whether those objectives are being net. Moreover,

beyond assessing the

can have, an add

with the myriad deci

it at the right time

fitvbetween program aims andtheitatt,pintent% evalua-

itional function: It can provide information.

to help

sions that must be made about.theeprogramvand prOYide

when it is most likely to be useful for maintd.

and improving the program.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?

The first key issue in planning the evaluation is, why conduct it at

all: what kinds of deciSion must be made, and in what.gF4er? Almost- always

.

more than one kind of decision is pending ,at the same time, so evaluation

\_ , .

plans for many programs have more than one component. For example onene

Colorado education program for parents of preschool childrent:it was decided1

that the most important questions were:

\Did the program deliver the services it promised, as frequently as it

said it would? .,.

o 'Ho,4, did participating. parents react to the program?

What the short4term effect of the program on the *children of

its participants? r

The knluation thus had three components. First, records of scheduled home

visits and meetings showed how often the program enabled parents to partici-,

pate,.while attendance figures showed how often individual- parents did so,

which of them used the Oiogram most, which services they used most, amount

11of use at various timesof year, and whether frequency of program use was

2 f1

4

0

;*7

.ge

-182

associated with children's achievement. Second, a survey conducted at the

end of the school year revealed what parents saw as the strengths and weak-< .

nesses of the program and how they thought it had affected them. This sug-

gested to the program. director and teachers where improvement was needed for

.

the next year. Finally, scores on school readiness tests indicated the

program's short-term impact. Although there was no forMal control group,

the scores of participants'. children were compared with those of children

43 enrolled in the Title I kindergarten whose parents had not participated in

the parent program, and were found to be significantly higher.

Other programs for parents might focus evaluation efforts on other

issues. If, for example, they wish to know about the effectiveness of the

inforMation about thd program that they distribute to parents, they might

c ask:

7 Do the .parents read the reports or newsletters sent home?

.4 1

Do they use the information? For example, do they know what activ-ities their child's class is concentrating on ca what tasks the chil-dren are learning? Do they know when the next parent meeting willtake place, and are they planning to attend?

-:-

If they'use the information, how do they do so?r

If they do not, why not?

Parent educators might want the answers to other questions:

Do parents who participate in parent program1 change their way ofteaching or behaving with their children?

Do participating parents use other community services differently?

Do the children of parents who participate in their school activitieshave different attitudes toward,school than children vihose parents

do not participate?

Do they achieve any better?

-a-

23

-19- .

}then parent participation consists in volunteer activities, evaluation

questions might be phrased in terms df frequency of participation, amount

of ney raised, number of projects completed, frequency of parents' outside

spec ing-engagements, and.the.like. Finally, governance as the primary

focus requirZs a careful examination of the decisions made, how they are

reachel, whether or not they, are put into practice, and how competent

parents feel in the role of advisor.

Evaluations can be designed so as to answer all of these and a great

many other questioll. The first challenge is to agree on which decisions

111,

are the most crucial, and--since trade-offs are sometimes necessary--which4

may have to be deferred, at least for a while. Alternatively, it Nty be

_reasonable to focus on one set of decisions when a program is getting

started and another when it is firmly established. . In any case, once evalu-

ators, program staff, and parents have looked closely at the program goals

to see what the program purports to do, they muSt,then list.the pczssible

decisions to-be made,and the kind of information necessary to make them.

WHAT ROLE WILL PARENTS PLAY?

A second key issue is the role-of parents in the evaluation. The most

obvious, although by no means the only one, is that of objects of evaluatiOn.

Evaluation altprogram staff examine the short -term impact of the program, or

its later effect on parents' knowledge, attitudes, or behavior. Parents

take tests, fill in questionnaires, or allow themselves or their homes to

be observed so that program effectiveness may be estimated.

-IN 1 this kind of traditional measurement may be valuable for some1 rr,

purposes, we suggest a different technique that many programs enthusiastically

report: to have parents act as agents of thelevaluatimOinstead of--or in

24

-20-

addition to--being its objects. Many parent education programs find'it Use-.

fal and economical to involve parents'at every step-in planning, implementing,

and evaluating their own programs. Program staff and parents jointly assess

. the need for a program, identify goals for the program as a whole and for

individual parents, determine a useful system of service delivery, and.finally

document implementation and evaluate the effect of the program. Education

for parents thus becomes education with parents. Some of these tasks, such

as assisting in program planning and evaluation, are ideal activities for

AOACs. Others, such as setting individual goals and assessing individual

progress, lend themselves better to joint planning by teacher and parent.

For evaluation purposes, this kind of involvement means that although they

may need training and &epport, parents help to decide what information to

collect, how to analyze it, and how to uge it. It also probably means that

data 4ill be easy to collect and analyze. Results should be presented clearly

and simply, so that Ahey can be readily translated into appropriate changes

: in individual prOgrams, and later into decisions about the total program.

WHAT ABOUT A CONTROL OR COMPARISON GROUP?

A third key decision concerns the standard against which the program

can be judged. Under ideal circumstances a well-designed experiment is the

best way to evaluate the effects of a program, because it sheds light on "-?-

cause and effect. Unfortunately, experiments are rarely feasible for evalu-

. ating,Title I programs for parents. The simplest case of alconventional

experiment requires the following steps:

Identify the population to be examined (parents of young childreneligible for Title I assistance) and select a sample from it

Use random or some other probabilistic assignment to'divide thesample into two homogeneous groups, a treatment group and a control

group

2:71

-21-

Ensure that the two groups remain as much alike as possible; except

for participation of the tre ,atment group in the program

At the end of the program, compare the two groups on variables of

interest.)

For b. number of reasons, these requirements are difficult to zeet in programs

for parents.* First, it is hard to knot,' how to define an eligible population

of parents. Are social and economic variables enough? Eligibility require-

ments for Title I programs in general decree that they are no:. Should

parental competence be measured in slime way? Our later discussion will show

that this cannot be done at all validly. How about children's competence?

2.---Should parents be identified and then matched by their children's performance

on one test or another? The predictive validity of young children's per-

formance on tests is also weak. Second, even if eligibility can be agreed

upon, identifying candidates and then selecting from among them is 'difficult.

Schools lack jurisdiction over parents, and parents' lives are seldom geared

to school calendars and schedules. 'All schools can do.is make a'program

available. Parents must decide whether they wish to join and can arrange to

do so, (Haney, 1980). /Third, as we have seen, participation cannot be

randomly arranged. Some parents will be more willing to join the program

-than others. Whatever the reasons for this, particip g parents probably

do not represent ECT-I parents as a whole; therefore the results of an evalu-

ation can rarely be generalized to parents who do notparticii3e. Moreover,

randomly assigning some volunteers to the program and others =o the control

* For a more detailed--but easily understood--discussion of methodological

issues of evaluating parent education programs, the reader is referred to

Gfay, S.' and Wandersman, L., The Methods4ogy of Home-Based Intetizention

Studies, Child Development, 1980, Sl, 993-1009.

t

-22-

group is impractical: imagine telling half the parents who want to join

your piogram that they can't, but that you still would like to collect data

from them!

Even if a program group and control group can be set up, difficulties

almost inevitably arise in.maintaining them. Parents in the program may

decide that they don't like it or don't have the time; and parents in the

control group, who had little incenti e to partici ate anyway, may not be

available for later assessment. Thus the group, iginally comparable, may

be quite different when the program ends, which will distort the results.

1)", Another requirement for experimental integrity is ensuring that the

control group"does not the progrI'm. This is not always easy. For

example, some of the parents in the two groups may be friends. Those in

the treatment group will discuss what they have learned with those in the

.control group. Or parents in the Control group may seek out and participate

in tcomparable program: if they joined from interest in your program, their

disappointment at being excluded may lead them to t t alternative--which

may also have positive effects. Thus when the two gro s are compared,

little difference will be found. The obvious--but incO ect--conclusion

is that the program doesn't work.

We -see, then, that the theoretical advantage of experiments and quasi-

experiments* often disappears when we use them to evaluate ECT-I programs

for parents. Instead of obtaining unequivocal information on program effects,

we may end up confused or misinformed 'about the worth of the program. There-

fore, evaluators and planners in many programs have turned to less rigorous

* Wb haire concentrated on the problems of true experiments, but the dif-ficulties are similar in quasi-experiments using equivalent controlgroups or time series.

2';'

-73-

obut more practical methods that link evaluation to the needs of families or

to program management and development. In the former, evaluation often con-

sits in developing an individual Family Education Plan with each family,

and then joittly determining whether it was implemented as prescribed and

assessing its effects. In theNlatter, evaluation focuses on the program,

carefully describing what took place and how parents felt about participating

in it.

ftO

a

4.

IV. FAMILY EDUCATION PLANS

Perhaps the biggest chailenge to those who develop and run programs for

parents is to take account of the enormous differenceg among families.

the broadest sense, families differ in the goals that they have for them--

selves and their children, in the cultural values and-experiences they bring

to child rearing, in,their attitudes toward education in the public school

system, and in their personal style And tolerance for particular child be-

havior. For example, the mother of three preschool children might be ex-

pected-

to spend far less time interacting with each child, and td be less

immediately responsive to each child's overtures, than a mother who has only

one ;Mall child. On the other hand she might time her interactions more

skillfully or respond more appropriately than a first-time mother. Similarly,

parents, whose experience with school personnel has been as subordinates, and

whose own education has not led to success and fulfillment, might be expected

to respond quite differently to teachers and home visitors than parents who

view education as a means to a better life. Program personnel quite reason-)

ab/y try to tailor their expectations, their teaching styles, and even the

content of-programs to each family's needs. One way of doing this is to

/develop a Family Education Plan REP).

7- The FEP resembles the concept of the Individualized, Education Plan (IEP)

that LEAs must develop fok all andicapped children under.PL 94-142 (the

Education for Ail 'Handicapped Act)- While the process of devising IEPs,

'varies somewhat from program to pEogram, the steps that are tandard and(4. ,

that directly apply to developing FEPs are theses jointly assess individual

411k

needs and determine goals; decide how to meet these need's; implement the

* The 'authors are indebted to ChristinTwyer of the Title I Technical

Assistance Center in Region I for her helpful suggestion in expan

and refining the concept of the FEP.

-26-

decision; see how well the needs are being met; modify program goals and

adapt procedures. Assessment then-becomes a measure of individual progress

as well as a planning step for the next phase of the program.

There are several ways to go about determining individual parental

needs. One is a qdestionnaire such as that illustrated in'Figure. This

is useful in first defining the-Areas in which parents want heip a d later

showing,how the parents feel the program responded-and how m11,1011 the have

learned. In the questionnaire shown, the range of topics'is broad; other

programs may offer a more modest choice, and a much simple?§bestionnaire

might be developed to reflect that range. Note that the questionnaire clearly

implies that certain parental needs can be met; it is therefore very important

that the program actually, be capable of meeting them. Unrealistic promises

lead to thwarted expectations and feelings of failure all around.

The next step in determining the needs of parents is for staff to confer

with parents at the outset of the program. A few questions about their child,

themselves, and how they wish to participate in he program should lead to

.initial,,goals and a tentative FEP. As parents and prOgram personnel continue

to, work together, mare specific behavioral goals and a more detailed FEP may

be- developed and periodically reviewed. An example of the way the process

works is the following. A parent may initially w4,1 to help make the child

ready for school. The parent may need to know more about this--what skills

the child should have, and how to teach them. Together, parent and program%

.staff may decide that the child should learn to enjoy storybooks and know

how to look at the detaill of the pictures. They may determine that the

parent will get a library card and read the child one short story each( day.

At an agreed time several weeks into the program, they may review wh ther

30

-27-

the library card has been obtained; and a lisle of the books signed out and

read will indicate how well the parent is moving toward-the greed objective.

Critics of the IEP process in special education,sztend that developing

these plans for children is time-consuming and expensive. Federal regulations

fool- the eduCational handicapped children (PL 94-142) and sometimes state

counterparts require that parents, teachers, and other specialists, (e.g.,

school Oincipals, guidance counselors) meet several times to assess family

need and determine educational objectives. Proponents of the process argue .

equally vigorously that IEPs provide the most directly relevant instruction

for each child and generate evaluation information useful at both individual

and program level. Moreover, they maintain that FEP procedures need not be

as complex. For example, there is no reason why the same classroom multi-

disciplinary procedures need be followed for FEP. Unlike programs for handi-

capped children, developing programs for parents includes relatively little

in the way of formal diagnostic evaluation. Hence the potential cast of,

characters is"considerably reduced. Moreover the number of staff available

to work with parents is likely to be limited and it seems superfluous to

involve staff members who will not participate in the FEP. A small group

of potential service providers is perfectly adequate, paraculii.ly if one

member is identified as a liaison or advocate for the family and assumes

responsibility for implementing the FEE. Finally, like the TEP process,

the FEP can help to form an alliance between parents and program personnel,

so that evaluation becomes an integral part of the program for parents.

-28--

Coordinating Sponsor: Fergupon Florissant School DistrictParent-Child Early Education-

bate: Phone:

Name

Address

City Zip

PARENTSHe

She

Age

Age\

School 0.\stpct

Length of ResidenceSt. Louis Area

Marital Status: Married Separated

PARENT; INTEREST SLIIIVEy,-:

CHILDREN: Numbercurrent As.: S.,,:

Months

1 Year Old2 Years Old3 Years Old

Years OldYears Old

Section A.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Listed below are several topics. FOR EACHTOPIC, PLEASE MARK (X) to indicateyour degree of interest:

PARENTINGNutrition

Ilhrth Data:

E3 Widowed El Divorced Single

I'mi) LINK

Interested Help Frovsefect* Responded:

Eating during pregnancy: its effects on yours and baby's health

Establishing sound eating patterns: the first three years

Planning balanced meals

Junk food: its effects on health and behavior

Other:

Health and Safety

What to check before calling the doctorRecognizing symptoms of childhood diseases

Whafto know about first aidWays to prevent accidents

Other:

Growth and Development

I've Learned:

p'pz rp 3, 7 795

+._ 6-: ri& /4:: C ii. I r i

,. V 7 lc .4 II ' 2:4: S ;:::

- --- q cs CY I .7. S 1:- 1: -".. t...- S.- -e..i - .2 .-.. it._

SI I 11.- c

P,..

What is typical? What to expect and not to expect from birththrough 3 years of age

Ways to prepare your child for success in school from birthin terms of physical, social, emotional and intellectual de-velopment,- inducting speech, language and coordination

How babies learn to talk and develop language

The value of play -- developing social and intellectual skills

Selecting toys and books appropriate for your child

Figure 2

-29-

Making and finding nocost or low-cost learning games

Ways to increase your child's self-confidence

How to get your child to, willingly do what you want him to

Ways individual differences in personality and abilities ofchildren and parents affect the parent-child relationship

How to select and prepare babysitters

How to select day care, nursery schools, preschools

Dealing with special problems bedwetting, slow to talk,picky eating, going to bed without a fuss, etc.

Use and abuse of TV and its effects on learning

Teaching values, morals, responsibility

Sex education and sex roles

Other:

COMMUNICATION, RELATIONSHIPS

.',ays to listen and talk with each otherParent to parent

Parent to childleading body language

Making decisions as a familyWays for fami'ies to talk and work together to solve

Oroblerns ,

Petermining what welexpect of each other and who doeswhat around doe house and with the children

Preparing brothers and sisters for a new arrival

iomoting healthy: happy relationships betweenbrothers and sisters

Vtays to maintain a good marriage and help it developas children become part of the family

'Living in harmony together or near relatives, inlaws

Other:

SPECIAL NEEDS OR CONCERNS

Prsoaring for childOirthScial concerns of the high school age parentFrilily adjustments related to divorceS.:ecial concerns of the single parent

Sccial concerns of the blended family (his, hers, ours)

P.; :ptIonv.A:seoting and helping a child 1,viji, a oandicap or a

secial- problem,.Oth e :

_

o

Interested:LINKResponded:A I've Learned:

3

Funded b, Dant oIn Foundation

731-

V. PROGRAM EVALUATION0

In Chapter II we mentioned that decision makers seeking to evaluate

their programs have.at their disposal a number of techniques for gathering

the relevant information. These techniques and their strengths and weak-

nesSes are discussed below.5.

TECHNIQUES FOR GATHERING DESCRIPTIVE} INFORMATION41

Of all the classes of data, the one used most widely in programs for

parents is simple descriptive information. All the programs we surveyed,

regardless of their goals or their organization for service, delivery, re-

ported collecting some kind of descriptive data to document parents' oppor-

tunities for involvement and the ways they choose to participate. In addition

to being useful in planning and managing the program, this kind of information

is needed for cost analyses and to meet federal accountability requirements.

In fact, determining the extent of parent involvement is the only required

evaluation of parent activities: in their annual performance reports, state

education agencies (SEAs) must provide data, aggregated across all programs,

on the number of.parents participating in PACs and other parentytivities;

the number of LEAs that provide Title I funds for PAC activities; community

Lnvolvement as measured by.the number of parents, both Title I and other,

who par4cipatea;andgustained interest as measured by the mean number of

persons who attended PAC meetings. The form to be used in reporting is

presented in Figure 5; the data required are minimal.

'Unobtrusive Measures

In most cases LEA staff and constituents want to know far more About

what their program is doing and tailor the descriptive information they

34

-32-

Advisory.Councils

1. Number of elected members of an advisory council who:

a. were parents of Title I public school students

bl were parents of Title I nonpublic:school students-

c. received training (not necessa ilyktle Ifunded training) related to ad 'sory councilactivities

\umber pf local educational agencies that providedTitle I funds for advisory council activities

Parent-Activities 0

1. Number of parents of Title rsfddents involved in thefollowing Title I activities (on each line, count aparent only once):

attended at least one school adVisory bpuncilmeeting

b> participated in project planning, implementatiOn,,

andZor evaluation

c. worked as volunteers in Title_I activitiesoutside the Title I'classroom (e.g.., chaperonedactivities, provided transportation, etc.)

2. Number of parents not included., in 1 above (e.g.4,

patents of non-Title I students) who were involved!tin one or. more of the Title r activities listed

der *

0

0

f

(

Figure 3: ESEA'Title I Parent 4 ity Information

O

a

4

-33-

4

gather to their own needs. That information can generally be gathered by

unobtiviive mrsures, such as simple counts of contacts between parents and4

the programattendance at meetings, Twober of parents4who participate in

volUtteer activities or vie!the classroom, number of home visits, number

of progress reports signed and returned, number of IEP.meetings requiring

little effort.. Often conveniently placed sign-in sheets, anumbering system

for home visits or progress reports, or a checlist of IEPs completed suffice.

In other programs, contact records include details, such as topics discussed,

material distributed, referrals to other agencies, new or changed needs or

or,interests, and plans for further contact (for example, see Figure 4).

Unobtrusive data can provide answers to questions ,such as .the following:

How many families welip.served in a given period? How does this, figure

compare with the estimatedmated number?

What types,of service Were given (e.g., home visits,parent confer-,

ences, written reports, field trips), and bow often?

-

ow_ How many appointments were missed? What reasons were given? What

follow-Up was done? ,

o- How many parents continued with the Oogram? Hlow many withdrehO.,

44

How many families needing services were identified?, HOW many received,

services? Why did the others not receive services?

How many paren ts participated in volunteef activities? How often?

What activities?

Did parents give presentations about the program or write letters of

support? How many? To what audiences?

What recommendations and decisions were made by PAC or other parent

groups? Were they followed?.

- .

The same questiorl can be casein individual terms, and pxamination of in-

dividual participation can provide u.seful information for planning programs

for individual families.

J4

tr

SUMMARY OF CONTACTS

Date Topics Discussed Materials Shared

Referrals to Agenciesor Materials

New or ChangedNeeds or Interests

Things. to be-',5

Addressedon Next Visit

.

.

.

a

I

,, . , W . .

-

o.I ' .

.o

Alt, k

( ,.

.,0

. ..

4

..

0 . .

*0 .

--.

Om.... 0

. ..

\ . .

f

.

.

.

ee

. .

_.,

3f' .... * t

Figtire 4: Parent-School Contacts (from Link Parent IntereSt Survey)

-35-

Thus unobtrusive measures are potentially useful for all types of

__p4ogram: those that simply share information; those that involve parents

as teachers; those that rely bn parents as volunteers; and those that include

parents as policy makers. In terms of program goals, they are most valuable

in describing changes in parental behavior toward schools and related organi-

zations.

These measures have several advantages. Information is readily avail-

able, and easy and inexpensive to collect: program personnel and parents

provide the data each time they meet. Recording each contact takes only

instants, and with care the information should be accurate and reliade.

Only three cauticins are in ordt.. First, since accuracy is essential, those

who keep the records should know :their purpose and be trained in their use.

In some cases, simply understanding why information is recoftled will be

sufficient motivation for accuracy. In others, reminders may be needed

from time to time, and records may have to be checked periodically for com-

pleteness and accuracy. Hence our second caution: it is helpful if someone

is assigned responsibility for overseeing the data. And third, record

systems shoul d in general be simple. There is as much risk in an over-

elaborate system as in one that containstio-o little information. Too often

a cumbersome system becomes a burden to program'staff and parents, and record

keeping thus becomes less.yeliable,

. .

Parent Reports

A second source of constructive and useful information reported by staff

in many programs is pefiodic reports from parents about their involvement

in the prolgram and their reactions to it. Almost every program we surveyed

uses some...kind of questionnaire or interview for that purpose. Most have

33

ti

-36- a.,-

4 developed their own protocols to deal with questions such as:

Was the program useful?

Was it effqiently and sensitively carried out?

Did it do what the parents expected it to?

Did program personnel provide enough information, and in a form

that was useful to parents?4

What might have been donQifferently,and how?

Did the program make any difference in the lives of-the parents1

or their children?

Like unobtrusive measures, parental satisfaction scales are reasonable in-

I

dicators of the success of all four major program types. They are most valu-

able in documenting changes in parents! attitudei toward their children's

learning and toward the schools. Taken together with descriptive data pror

duced through unobtrusive measures, they document how parents feel as well

as what they do.

Reports of parental satisfaction are also relatively easy to acquire.

Parents are usually willing to provide the nec ary information. The form

used may be as simple as that presented in Figure ,5; or it may be far more

c$'

complex, requiring that parents rank the program-on features such as quality

of commuNcation between parents and staff; parents' feeling of efficacy

within'the proga; their perceptions of changes in their own attitude,

AIknowledge, or behavior, and of changes in heir children. Often these

more complex questionnaires are completed in the presence of a staff member . --- I

who'can help. parents with them. They may also be supplemented by a structured' ,

interview. Again, we advise simplicity. Parents may not respond to a

e*"

questionne that is hard to understand or takes too long to complete.

Those who design these fours may find that "less41is more."

or

Ta

-37-n

l. As a result of participating in this prc ram,I feel'

that my ,child:

--- Has shown improvement in speech and language skills

Has shown little or no imprOvement in speech and

language, skills

Please explain.

fAs a result of participating in this program, I feel

that I (as a parent):

---,Hive gained in my understanding of my child'sneeds and my ability to help him

Have gained little or no new understanding of mychild's needs and feel no better able to help himwith it than I was before I cam to the workshop.

Please explain,

yes no

yes no

yes no

yes no

3. What parts of the program did you find to be most helpful, and why?

Pc?.

4. What parts of the program did you find to be least helpful, and why?

5. What changes would you recommend to be made in the program for next year?

6. Please'check one of the following:

If"

%,

I participated in almost all of the program.

I missed more than five days of the program (or did not participate

in full-day sessions) 4

I participated in, ess than half of the program.

Figure 5: Example of Questionnaire for Parents

et

A

-38-

Although questionnaires and interviews are valuable in documenting

parents' feelings 44out the program and its effects on them and on their

children, we must also raise some cautions about them, particularly i.f they

are administered by program staff. Aside from the-natural problem the staff

may-have in being objectiVe about'their own program or performance, parents

may try to "please the teacher" by providing what they think the information

seeker wants. One director pointed out:

It is my observation that subjective reports often amount tostroke!' for staff. If you have a dynamic trainer, or evenan adequate one, you will often find persons responding to[him] and unable in any systematicway to evaluate the efficacyof the training provided to them.

Parents may also report differently to different interviewers. They are more

likely to try to please an interviewer they consider someone in authority (e.g.,

a program director) or someone they do not want to hurt (e.g., a teacher or home .

visitor). One way of dealing with this is to use parents more directly, assuming

that they will be more honest with other parents. A voup ofparents, perhaps

PAC members, might help - decide what information should be asked. With training

they,may even take charge of this aspect of evaluation, conducting interviews,

collecting questionnaires, and even participating in data analysis.

Finally, several program directors reported tht they regularly collect

this information from parents who leave the program. Responses from this group

often tell where'the program has gone awry. Such information is particularly

useful for improving future efforts,.

Rating Scales

A third prevalent means of gathering descriptiVe.data iSarent ratings of .

the instruction received and the impact of the program on them or 'their- child.

Parents are asked to assess how much they are learning, and whether they are

interacting with or instructing their child differently.after participating

in the program:.

-39-

Unfortunately,. rating scales are often thought of as measures of program

impact, and issues of technical quality quickly arise.* Developing.a scale

and then adequately assessing its reliability and validity is a difficult

and costly process, often beyond the scope of Title I parent programs. Bor-

rowing scales ,developed by others has occasionally been moderately successful

in /ttempts to rate changes in parent behavior, but we found only two sets

of rating scales that have been used with satisfaction by several programs:

the Parent Attitude Checklist (Boyd and Stauber, 1977), and the Home Base

Survey and Parent.Survey, adapted by the Yakima, Washington, Public Schools

from the Parent Education Model of Follow Through. The former waseevelope'd

rN,

for a home-visit parent education program. Parents-ra*te their attitudes and

behavioral reactions to teaching and child management situations along a 5-

point scale ranging from "never" to "always." The items assess parents'

knowledge of and participation in_techniques of child management and teaching,

and parents! role as teacher, their self-confidence, and their attitude toward

child discipline.

4

The Yakima Home Base Survey and Parent Survey consists of brief questions

that are answered on a scale of "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The

questions address parents' perceptions Of changes in their own and their

.child's behavior, their role as a teacher, and-the appropriateness of the

home environment. Both scales are reviewed in the Appendix.

Personnel in several other programs reported that they had tried to

use existing rating scales to assess changes in parents' attitudes, but

* For a brief but thorough discussipn bf traditionAjcpasurement considera-

tions, the reader is referred,to the resource book Assessment in Early

Childhood Education-(Haney & Gelberg, 1980).Are

43

-40-

with little success. In the interest of avoiding u necessary effort for

others, we will briefly mention a few of the scales o u)ed. The first was /

Blaine Porter's Parental Acceptance Scale. Designed for parents of children

aged six to ten, this measures parental acceptance o children. Parents

rate theMselves on a self-inventory questionnaire,ac ording to their feelings

and actions in relation to their child. Another ins ument, the Elias F'amily-

,

Opinion Survey (1952 -1954):, measures feelings of tetra- family homeyness /home-.

lessness, while ygt another, the Index of Parental Attitudes (1976), measures

paren'ts, contentment in their relationship to their children. A fourth scale

that initially was rathertwidely adopted but was later discarded is Norma

Radin's Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) (1958) or its Glasser-'

Radin Revision' (18). If-has been used as a pre- and post-measure of changes

in parents' attitudes, and, contains Likert-type multiple choice items. Each

of the 113 items uses a forced- choice scale. The respondent is asked to

ti

agree strongly, agreetmildly, disagree mildly Nor disagree strongly, and

replies are scored 4, 3, 2,, and 1 respectively. Notals are obtained for 23

subscales, each containin0 items.

/, The, paucity of rating, scales that have bee/.successfully adopted outside

the program for-which they.were developed 106ds us to make two suggestions.

First, it'is wiser for ECTIiarent education programs to make only modest

requirements of the technical quality of a parent rating scale, to develop

one tied directly to their program, and to use it to improve the program.

It can be a rich source of information about what parents think they have 1 .

learned and how they think they have changed, though it may not be totally

accurate or give a full picture of program impact. .After all,.as research

suggests, the''supposed beneficiaries of intervention programs'are,p/ensitive

`a

I

-41-

about changes in their own attitudes or behavior. Moreover, programs for

parents may lead not only to specific short-term changes, but to long-term

adjustments in attitude and thus in behavior. Self- rating scales ncnethe-

less offer valuable descriptive information on parents' reactions tc the

program. If the items of the scale, are tied to objectives, program staff

can use the data to improve their work.

, TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING SHORT-TERM IMPACT

In some cases it may not be enough to collect good descriptive f.ata on

what the program is doing, how it conforms to plans and'requirements,1 and

how participants feel about it. In particular, personnel in parent education

and parent training programs often want to assess the short-term impact of

the program on parents or children'. The assessment of young children and

of short-term program impact is. complex and challenging. It is disc-.:ssed in

two other resource books in this series, Short-Term Impact Evaluaticns of.

Early Childhood Title I Programs (Haney, 1980), and Assessment in Early

Childhood Eduacation (Haney and Gelberg, 1980). In this book we confine our

discussion to the measuring of short-term program effects on parents.

For programs+that intend change in parents' knowledge, behavior, or

attitudes toward the child, two foci for evaluation have emerged: pirent-

child interaction or teaching style, and the amount of appropriate s=imulation

available in the home. Program directors reported the ofrtests, obser-

vations, and teacher ratings to assess the former, and formal or inft.Imal

observation and rating of the home environment to assess the latter.

Tests

At first glance, _it would seen that the simplest way to deterMime what

a program participant has learned is through a test. Tests are rela:ively

43

ir

ti

-42-

easy to gi) and score and their results are simple to analyze. Moreover,

if the test is based on criteria deFived from the curriculum, item analysis

can show program weaknesses and can serve as a basis for recycling parents

through material not,yet learned. But there are problems with the use of

tests°. First, a4most no standardized tests are available; and developing

tests of even modest technical quality is a task beyond the capacity of most

ECT-I parent programs.- We found' only one test whose developer's have system-

atically attended to quality control: the Parent As A TeachelInventory,

reviewed in the Appendix. This measures program impact on the interaction

of preschool children and their parents. It can be given individually or

in groups and takes 15 to 30 minutes. :Parents are asked how they respond

in a variety of specific interactions with their child. The responses are

then coded into five areas: acceptance of the child's creative development,

frustration about child rearing, feelings about control and discipline,

understanding of children's play and.its influence on development, and con-

fidence as a teacher.

A number of parent programs, parficularlylthose for parents of handi-

capped children, have developed criterion- referenced or competency tests

keyed to their curriculum. For example, Dallas, Texas, has one (Macy, 1978),

as has Project RHISEE/Outreach in Rockford, Illinois (Smith, 1979). Such

tests are most useful in programs aimed at specific changes. in parental

behavior. Thus programs with' behaviorist' philosophy might define rein- '

forcement procedures for parents to learn4 designing several test items to

measure their knowledge. Of course, for progfams with more diffuse or in-

dividual goals, even criterion-referenced tests are difficult to devise.

Fv 4G

4[51.

-43- 7.

Beyond the limitations of the measures, there are other problems in

trying to test parents. Even if limited technical standards are accepted,

taking tests is often frightening to parents, particularly those whollave

had unpleasant experiences in school. Moreover, since many Title I parents

reaepoorly, simply taking a test may be almost impossible. Third, because

parents differ so much in what they bring to the program and expect to learn

from it, a single test cannot adequately assess program effects: Finally,,

there are ethical issues. Many program planners feel that tie testing of .

parents is an unwarranted intrusion into child-rearing practices--an areaC

traditionally left to the family.

As a result of these limitations, we found that few progrps formally.--

test parents. Many of those that have tried have abandoned the effqrt. In

N.,....

,those that hare not, personnel are uncomfortably aware that'the tests do not

, 0 tadequately reflect program objectives or respond to the, feelln s and needs..

f. 4

'

.

.

of the parent group. Mostprograms therefore have recourse to'other methods...

of assessing program impact.

Observational Techniques

Instead of using tests, some programs have turned to obserVation. .Here

observers systematically record parents' behavior according topredetermined

guidelines. Observation techniques are particularly appealing because they

assess parental behavior directly and apparently show how parents practice

--what they have learned. TheYlialso provide program_ personnel with specific

data for pranning further instruction.

skleWe found three observation techniques in use: observation Of the me

environment, naturalistic observation of parent-child interaction, and con-,

trolled observation of parent-child interaction. We will discuss 4ach of

ID

these in turn.

'

1 --44-

Measures of home environment. A number of programs assume that one

effect.of the program will be to improve the home environment by increasing

understanding of the needs of the children. We found several environmental

/assessment inventories in the literature, but with few)Xceptions, little

evidence of their use beyond the program for which they were developed. One

measure was cited over and over again: the Home Observation for Measurement

of the Environment'(Caldwell & Bradley, 1972), designed for use with children

at.riskof developmental delay due to environmental deprivation. It consists

of a checklist completed by a trained interviewer who visits the family at

home. The interviewer records items in areas intended to assess the frequency

and stability of adult-child contact, amount of developmental and vocal

stimulation, need gratification, emotional climate, avoidance of restriction

on motor-and exploratory behaliior, available play Material, and home character-,

0

O

istics inddcating4parental concern with achievement. The observation takes

about one hour.

.A second measure is the Cognitive Home Environment Scale (CHES)' developed

by Radin & Weikart (1966). This also measures the degree of cognitive stimu-.

lation in the hpme, throdth a combined observation and interview technique.

It4has been used by several intervention programs, who reportedly found-it

satisfactory. Both scales are reviewed in'the Appendix.

PProponents of home observations believe that they yield greater insight

into program effects than do artificial testing solutions, since they more

realistically portray the kind and amount of stimulation and support the

child receives. Again, however, those considering the use of home environ-

ment measures should'be aware of potential difficulties.

4 v

-45-

First, of course, home obset;'ations are unavoidhly intrusive. Second,

if standards of informed consent are upheld,parents are aware that their

home is to be assessed and may try to make a favorable impression. A quick

cleanup, a hasty trip to the store for some inexpensive but "appropriate"

books, a diSplay of-play materialothat may not normally be accessible are

all easy ways to get ready for the assessment--and distort its validity.

Predictive validity is also an issue. Although Caldwell has shown some

evidence that home environment and child outcomes are correlatedj1977),

no other instrument we know of has been able to do so.

,/ .r

- Third, the observer is a source of bias. 'Selective inclusion or ex--

clusion-of ebbjects or events is the most obvious possibility. No observer

sees everything, and seledting among the myriad of observable events is

critical to the portrait painted by the observation. Extensive and repeated

1training is t sine ua non for gathering reliable--and relevant--observa-

tional data. owever, such training is costly; and this must be considered

in deciding hether to make home observations.

Obsery tions'of arent -child interaction-. There are many parent-child

interaction scales in the literature (see Measures of Maturation, 1973, for

an extensive list and description). Although they are designed to assge--

the edudational climate of the home, there is no agreement on what variables

contribute to it. Hence there is the risk of evaluating families by personal

factorst.g., housekeeping standards--that are really beyond the province4C

of the program. Moreover, most of these scales are not applicable to or

manageable by ECT-I parent education programs. Before discussing the few

examples we found that Might be useful'in thesqmprograms, let us examine

why.observations of parent-child interaction)are worth considering as a

element in evaluating parent programs.,

4

The main advantage cited tejustify.these observations is that they

yield a rich body of derailed data about what is really happening between

parent and child. The argument is. "Look not at,what they sarbut at, what

they do." If the data are collected reliably, they are direct,evidence of

, . . .

. what parents do under specific circumstances.- If, for example, it is a goal

t. of the program that parents respond to children's utterances with full

.0.

sentences, observations can determine how frequently and.re arly they do

111rso in11 daily events such as mealtime or getting ready for be , or if ther

goal is to help parents teach through positive verbal reinforcement, obser-

vation can show how often'a mother,praises a child for a task completed.

When the parent behaves consiAtently'in Ways suggested by the program, a

reasonable assumption is that the program is responsible, It has "worked."

'Some /programs extend the usefulness of their observations =by. video-.

4 4

,taping them and replaying the_tapes for subsequent program use For example,

-5 h

a video-tape Of a mother teaching her child to use a new toy might be played}

back with the mother, allowing'her to "see herself as 'Others see her" and

to identify elements of her teaching style that she or program staff feel

could be improved.

Observations of parent child interaction range from scales like the

Parent Behavior Inventory (Boyd and Stauber, 1977),.7in_which home_ teachers

observe parents informally and rate their performance in various teaching

44and management tasks, to far more sophisticated and expensive measures.

For example, the Mutual Problem-Solving Task, developed by Epstein, Schwartz

and Merce (1975), involves systematic observation of mother and child baking

cookies together. Behavior is observed and recorded at time-sequenced

4

intervals and then coded by highly trained staff. Categories.of behavior

-47--

include affect, task involvement,'requests for assistance, and responses to

requests for assistance.

Levenstein, at the Verbal Interaction Program, has also developed an

observation technique ( Levenstein, 1978). In this case, each mother-child

pair is video-taped for.ten minutes of interaction in a standard play situ-

ation. The tape is then coded using a program-referenced Maternal Interactive

Behavior Scale that includes the following items: gives labels; gAs colors;

describes actions; gives'numbers shapes; gives information, praise; aids

divergence; smiles; replies to child; gives no reply. Video-taping adds to

the expense of the procedure, but it also allows for greater quality control

than scoring on the scene. Moreover, the tape can be played to the parents.

Thus evaluation data can be introduced into the process of program planning.

Although observation techniques are appealing and there may be no real

substitute for Ytaking a look at the progrm," several issues deserve thought.

First,_it is important to undei-stand that the process,of observing often

akfeCts the behavior, observed. A parent whose teaching style is being as-

sessed may use positive reinforcement in teaching a new skill, and refrain

from scolding or punishing a child, but behave somewhat differently under

normal circumstances.. Second, most programs make only a single observation,

qk

or two at the best: one before the program begins and one when it ends. 'As

responses are likely to reflect momentary fluctuations in parents' typical

behavior, judgments based upon a single observation can be exacted to be of

liMitedvalidity.

Third, observation techniques require a highly trained staff using a

carefully designed protocol, extensive coding procedur,es, and often sophis-

ticated analys'is techniques Video-taping requires additional technical' 4

54.

-48-

staff and hardware. Together,' these elements make observat expensive.

Finally, observatiOn is among the most intrusive types of evaluation. To

the extent that issues of invasion of privacy-and family rights are salient.4)

to program delivery, they may argue against use of these methods.

Teacher ratings. In Many programs teachers are asked to rate parents'

. attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward their child or the schools--the

same questions as in parent assessments, but from the perspective of the

teacher. Most of these rating systems are simple checklists of program (or

a'individual family) objectives, and teachers rate growth toward those objec,-

tives. Rating is easy and inexpensive to do.

Like parent reports, teacher ratings are a reasonable way of assessing

how programs affect parents' attitudes, knowledge, and functioning toward

iso

their child or toward the school . Under careful supervision, the information

they yield should-be reasonably accurate. A Well-trained and perceptive

teacher who has worked with .a parent or a p'arent-child pair'should be able

to say with some confidente how well the lessons were learned. However,

circumstances are not always ideal, and we must once again mention:possible

sources of error.

First, because teachers make an intense commitment of time, energy,

and often emotion to each family, they may"not always judge eKange objectively.

This is particularly true if they believe that change is also a measure of

their own performance. Second, teachers, like everyone else, bring to their

) job values and expectations that canraffectthe way they interact with and,,,

assess parents. For example, a teacher who perceives a mother as welcoming. '

and pleasant during home visits may also see her as cooperative and eager>

to learn. Conversely, a mother who seems tired, untidy, or unenthusiastic 4

5

-.49-

may be judged uninterested in the program or even in the child. Separating

the bias 'of teachers"attitudes toward certain parents from their assessment

of program effectiveness needs careful thought.

Summary

We have se n that evaluating the short-term impact of programs for ..

parents raises some special difficulties. The most conspicuous of these is

the almost total absence of reliable and valid evaluation instruments and

procedures. In addition, program objectives usually span a broad spectrum,k

and objectives for individual parents are often unique; hence the problem of

,

assuring that the assessment of program goals is valid and the evaluation

findings are representative. For these reasons, we suggest that ECT-I

parent programs Concentrate on descriptive studies rather than rigorous

studies of short-term program effects. The credibility of descriptive studies

can be ,enhanced by triangulating, or by gathering information from more than

one source. For example, program evaluation might include the following com-

ponents:

A rating scale to assess parents' perceptions of their own learning

A rating scale to determine staff perceptions of parents' learning

A Survey of parents' satisfaction with,the program

A reading test to determine whether the child is prepared to cope

with the tasks of early schooling.0

TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING LONG-TERM IMPACT AND SUSTAINED EFFECTS

Decision makers in programs for parents may also'need to ]Wow whether

changes in parents' knowledge, attitude, and behavior remained after the

parents left the program and whether longterm goals were attained. For

example, if at the end of the program parents' regularly read to their chil-

dren mote often than formerly, do they continue to do so? After several

A

-SO-

years of participating in program activities, do parents deveLp positive

attitudes toward education and hence motivate their children throughout the

school years to study and learn?. Decision makers want to know whethdr par-

ticipation in programs for parents prevents or)reduces the likelihood. of

future school problems such as dropping out, truancy, retention in grade,

or persistent infraction of school rules. Finding the answers to these

questions requires a longitudinal data base; that is, records on children

and families must be kept-for as long as possible, preferably from the time

children enter school until they leave.*

Longitudinal data can also provide decision makers with useful informa-

tion for planning parent programs. For example, they can show whether the

children of parents who participate in home visit programs do better in

school, or later drop out of school less frequently, than children whose

parents do not participate. If they do, an argument, could be made to con -'

tinue the program. If they do not, program planners might look for alter-

natives..**

zeLEAs that have a Idngitudinal data system or are, considering developing _

one might do well to include information about families' participation in

parent programs. The resource book Longitudinal Information Systems in

Early Childhood Title I Programs (Kennedy, 1980) provideg helpful information

K-)

* One could, of course, design a longitudinal study t ontinues far

beyond the school years. Indeed, a number of such s s have been

done; see, for example, the Fels study (Kagan et al., 62) 6r Lois

Murphy's study of)chifdren's coping ability' (Murphy, L974). However,

since the use of Title I funds is confined to programs during the schoolyears (usually kindergarten to grade 12), we will limit our discussion

to that period.

\** Such comparisons must be made with caution, since other events un-doubtedly also contribute to the difference.

,54

-51-

on how to set up and maintain such a system. However, there are at least2

some difficulties in maintaining longitudinal information that are particu-.

larly germane,

to prograMs foriparents.

,The first difficulty stems from thi mobility of any population. LEA

staff -agree that Title l*families are for the most part highly mobile. Many

move from home to home7and in doing so are 1bst to the LEA. Moreover, with

the increasing rate of divorce and'with changes in gamily constellations,

children often live with different parents or parent surrogate's at different

tithes in their,school years. A longitudirial data file would probably be

unable to track such changes.

Parents' right to privacy is another importa t issue. It might well

gf0

be argued that to date, at least, the mandate of schools does not extend

beyond the child, and that inclUsion of long-term data--even about parents'

participation, but More particularly'about parents' success or failure in

school programs - -is a serious invasion of privacy.

T5CHNIQUES FOR LINKING PROGRAM RACTICE TO OUTCOME

Many decision makers want not only to know whethe4he program did what

it proilised to, how well, and how parents feel about it, but torunderstand

how program input is linked to program effect, and why the program may

have unanticipated consequences. Qualitative evaluation, particularly when

it is Combined with quantitative programdesCription, is a promising means

of providing this information. As Apling,and Bryk point out in the resource

book Evaluation for Ihiproving Early Childhood Title I Programs (1980):

"These methods resemble each other (and differ from others) in that they

are b'ased on the'idea of the evaluator as instrument.' Less emphasis is

placed on standarazing data collection activities, and' much is left to the

-52-

. individual evaluator to decide as the evaluation proceeds" (p. 27). Since

there are so few standardized measures of program impact on individual

parents, these qualitative methods are' worth considering. Some of the

program improvement practices Apling and Bryk recommend can be easily adapted

for parent programs and are particularly amenable to parent or PAC involve-,

ment. These include self-study and some process methods.

Self-Study. Self-study is a form of program review in which participants

(in this case teachers and parents) assess their own program. For example,

in a program that used home visitors to teach parents and children, the

.director wanted to know whether the technqiue was approiriate for all the

families enrolled. She also wondered whether there were other eligible

parents in the community who might participate if the program were organized

differently. She found that her staff, too, were not sure that their activ-

ities met the needs of all their families. As their concerns became focused

more specifically, the original set of broad questions was refined. Program

staff also identified parents who they thought would be interested in and

11,capable of participating in a process evaluation. These r).rents were ap-

proached and an evaluation study group was formed.

The group met and defined the following seemingly simple questions:

44*

so&

Jo What services. is the program, providing?

Do families receive home visits as-often as they were promised?

Do some families receive more or fewer home visits than others?Why?

How do families assess home visits?

How do prbgram staff, assess home visits?

What are the implications of the answers to these questions for

next year's program?

56

0

r

91,

-53-

a

f

Tasks were then assigned to.individuals or subcommittees. fortunately, the

homeNisitors4lad descriptive records of all their visits.. To':examine the

,Otirst question, a subcommittee reviewed these and compiled a Profile on each

,

family. The profile showed how many visits had been made, and when; and.

visits schedOed and then cancelled, and by whom. It alsoAprovided a brief

account (two or three sentences) of eachhpme visit.

A 'tecondsubCommittee was asked to design an interview to find out.how

parents felt about home visits. Together with the dir ctor of evaluation

in the LEA, this team designed an open-ended intervie to be conducted by

parents. The director of guidance was brought in to elp plan, sessions to

teach parents the skills of interviewing. The team also extended its mandate.

slightly by planning a similarriAterview for home visitors, the-program

director, and the administrative assistant, so as to evaluate-the efficiendy

of hoMe visits from all perspectives.

The, next task was to review the cost of the project. The Program

director did this, coming up with figurps on the total cost of the program

and =the cost, of indiVidual components sucb as materials, staff training,

consultAts, and preparation for and conduct of home visits.

The subcommittee noy/,envened Parents were selected and trained to

hold interviews, interviewing first one another and then thp-re aining

program participants. The full group, including the evaluato s,emet aga4

several times -to analyze the results, translate'them into plans for the

future, and finally' write their report,

The report described the committeefindings..-Among them was evidence

that most families were receiving fewer home visits,than promised. Two,

groups were receivingsubstaritiarly fewer: working mothers andLmathers

t

-54-

under 20 years of age. The first shortfall seemed to bAlue to scheduling

difficulties: mothers werdounavailable during the working day. The second

occurred because very young, mothers did not find home visits helpful, saw

the visitors as Monitors or social workers, and reported being uncomfortable

talking with them. Moreover, interviewers found that many particiOnts

felt isolated and were unaware\of the,community services available toth m.

Armed with the study report, program personnel made.the following-

changes:

Systematized scheduling so that homevisits planned and completedwere regularly recorded in the program office; this was to motivatestaff to follow the home visit'schedule as planned.

Hired one home visitor to work:late afternoons, evenings, and week-ends, and hence be available to working parents.

Hired someone to survey the community and list the available Servicesand other resources as well as the means of gaining access to them;,a monthly newsletter was issuedto update this information.

Planned group activities where, mothers could meet to discuss issuesof raising and edudating children and other concerns.

In this example, the program staff were the ones who couldduse the informa-

tion generated by tile,&elf-study,arthough the repo was also available

' 4to the administration, the schof11 board, the PAC, and program participants.

In addition to program improvement,, theevaluation-served two other functions.

First, data collection was expanded to include continuous updating of family0

service profiles. Second, the PAC, interested in the extensive involvement

of parents in the evaluation, recommended similar self-studies for other

phases of the district's Title°I program.

4.1Non.

Self-study requires a great deal of time from all participants. If

they understand its purpose and view it,as an opportunity to improve the

program, it can greatly enhance communication between parents and program

4'

-55-

staff, beyond individual parent-teacher contacts. On the other hand, it is

essential that the effort be well planned and supervised so as not to digress/--

from its purpose. Committee members must keep in mind what they are trying

to dO; and they must receive the training and direction they need if the/

results they report 'are to be useful for.

program improvement.'4.

,.. .

-

Process Evaluation. Apling and Bryk (1980),describe sever aLtypes of4

.

process evaluation. In.this'resource book we will consider them as a single

class. If the general apiroach of the process study seems to fit the evalUa-

tion needs of a particular p ;ogram for parents, then evaluators and program

planners are referred to Evaluation for Improving Early Childhood Title I

Program for help in selecting appropriate procedures.

In many way process studies are siMilar*to self-studies, but unlike the

latter they invo ve the services tf persons other than progra= staff and(,.:.

participants. The outsiders maybe members of the LEA evaluation department,

an independent evaluation company, or consultants from a university. Of

#

course these professionals may increase the cost of the evaluation. However,

they may also provide more objective information about the program, and the

data. and subsequent reports may have more credibility with decision makers.

Hence, a process study may be useful to a wider audience than a self-study.

Essentially, a process study looks at the links between program input

and effect. It enables program planners or evaluators to' go beyond what

happened and begin to draw some conclu'sions abput why it happened and what

Ainfluenced the outcome. Let-us tisilli.er,two examples of ways in which

process evaluations were used. In a program for parents in a Colorado

community, a.consulting council of parents, staff and technical service

representatives, and physicians was formed to advise the project staff on

5-)

-56-

policy and program operation, to make recommendations in areas of psycholog-

ical, social and medical services, and to serve as a link to'the community.

However, before long the project director noted that things were not goiyig

411111*

smoothly: the council seemed to be divided'into a number of factions. She

called in an evaluation'team from a nearby university, and two observers

attended each of the remaining council meetings. Using observation protocals

developed in advance, they recorded certain key features of the meetings.

These included:

Who did what percentage of the talking at the meeting

Who raised issues or questiOns fOrdiscussion

Who responded to what kinds °tissues

Who voted how on key issues

r

What was the tenor` of responses when an issue was raised by parents;,by professionals; by staff

Whether issues were resolved by the end of the,meetingsWhether

If questionS were left unanswered, whether appropriate follow-upactivities were developed.,,,

*

The evaluators also interviewed council members to investigate questions

such as these: 9

Who determined meeting time and agenda?

How convenient were the times to,the various, members?.

What did members perceive as the most important purpose(S) of thecouncil?

How well did they feel the cquncil achieved these pUrposes?

Based on the results, the evaluation team then wrote a report citing ways

in which the advisory council was working effectively and ways in which

they were unintentionally undermining their own efforts. The report went

on to suggest how,the council might increase its effectiveness.

-57-

A different kind of process study was reported,by a parent education,

program in Massachusetts, which provided a comprehensive system of diagnostic

assessment of young Children and education far parents:- The program had a

.

I,

separate evaluation staff, After the_project had operated.for several months,,

the evaluation staff wanted to know'how parents viewed the total program and-

its various component services, and particularly whether staff and partici-,

pants understood the program in the same way.gtNnder the directionof aI 1

.. .

.member of the evaluation staff? four,interviewers held own-ended,/nterviews s= t

. . 1`t, .,

with the program director, teachers, physicians, nurses, social workers, and'... .

.

parents. Using the program's goals as a framework, they allowed the respon6-.

ents to pursuejhe issues that were most important to them.

.From the interview data, the evaluators reached tentative,conclusions,

about what aspects of the program were interesting and valuable tovarious

groups of participants. Then they examined the fetquency of families' actual 4

0

participation in the various program ,components. Putting the two sets of

data together they strengthened that conclusions.

This evaluation had ,an additional result. It found that parents de-

.scribed as important certain functions that were not part of the program .

description but that staff were unofficially carrying out, Some of these

were then elevated to program goals and,purposely continued. Process studies

can-often provide information on serendipitous o,unexpeCted effects.

As Apling and Bryk (1980) point out, the key to success In process;

evaluations is the quality and training of the evaluators, Observations

and interviewing demand highly complex skills'as well as sensitivity to

the subtleties of situations and personal interaction. Hence they ought

not to be undertaken without careful planning and supervision.

61

-59-

VI. SUMMARY

In this resource bOok we have presented ideas on ways in which LEAs

4might -evaluate their ECT-I programs for parenn,,which span a range of pro-.

gram goals.' Our most striking finding is that tests and measures of parent

PerformanCe or parent competence are few and are generally of loi. 'technical

quality. In fact, few have undergone even minimal examination of 'validity

or reliability. Most LEAs and their evaluation advisors have therefore con-," A

centrated on describing and'assessing their own programs inorder to frame

recommendations for local program activities. This task is complicated by

two factors: .

It is difficult Ao describe programs accurately and completely;

-st

There are ethical constraints on evaluation activities.

In this final chapter, 1,7e will briefly review, these two factors and _then

suamarize,the advice given us by educators, and.evaluators in parent programs

. -

across the country.1. .1

,Our survey of parent programs suggests, that defining the methods of

parent education programs is an,especially difficult problem.' Indeed,-

creators of such program's sometimes have trouble saying just'what their

program is. There are reasons-why it is difficult to be specific, of course.

First, parent education and its goals are only a minute portion of the

experience of each family. .Many families-in our society are privileged

by having access to information about successful child rearing, and the

support and stability within and outside the family' to enable them to use

that information; but there are others' who mayirknow ghat to do" but--

.because'of personal stress, economic need, or excessive demands from any

of a number of sources--be simply unable to do it. It is not clear that

f 62

ra

o..

-60-

. for these families it is useful to even try to define goals for instructing

their children. One of our correspondents summarized the complexity of

matching goals. to families. He said, "There is-no readily identified or

universally accepted developmental sequence for parents as _there is for .

children, and since each family brings to the program not one potential

participant but several, each of them needs a different program."

Second, although there is consensus that the parents' influence on the

very young child is indeed significant, there really are no normative stand-

ards for good parenting. The problem is .analogous to that of earlly child-

hood education in general. Just as it is not yet possible to define with

precision the skills, understandings, and beitavior that make for a competent,

s hool -ready child, so it is not possible to define good parenting. To

circumvent this dilemna, program planners sometimes try to define obj1ectives

. in terms of child competence to be promoted through parent programs.. How-

ever, even when there is agreement on the desired effect on children, there

still is no firm evidence of a causal relationship between specific parental

behavior and any but.the most discrete child behavior. There is, as we

have pointed out, some knowledge that suggests desirable parental attitudesA V

and skills, but even here nothing indicates that there is only one way to

do the job; different parental attitudes and behavior might lead to similar

.440 4

And outcomes.

Most of the programs that define the objectives of parent participation

in terms of effects on the child concentrate on language and cognitive de-

velopment. They provide joint activities for parent and child to develop

these skills. The problem here, of course, is that the relationship between

the activity and its effect is usually merely the teacher's or program

s3.

developer's best guess, baseAn little more than personal interpretation

and intuition.. And of course this approach puts aside for the moment the

Complicated interaction of cognitive, affective, and motivational develop-

merit in young children:,

=Other pTograms,.working,on the'premise thatthe process of learning

howto,learn'is more taut than the contentof ¢hat is learned, remain

purpeely vague about WhaA the child is .expected .to achieve and how the is

t'to be taught. Parent are erloOked.to allow exploration in a prepared

(safe andstibulating environment. They a 'taught to respond taexplora-

tory behavior in ways intended to facilitate development of the learning

process. Indeea, there'iS 'some evidence that children reared in a safe

.,

. /anU developmentally apprOpriate environment by parents attuned to their

1 '

interests and level of development are more competent in areas of language,

. I4 4

P

cognition, and social development. The problem is in defining that match.

And certainly one cannot egclude the possibility that there is more than

-One possible match. .

. f

The issues of privacy of fkilies and the rights of parents must also,

be considered, both in program design and implementation and in evaluation.

On the program side, parent education activities, particularly home visitti

programs, have been challenged as intrusions into child-rearing, an area

traditionally reserved to families. Often the program goalS do not match

family values. For example, in some cultures girls are taught to be quiet

and submissive; suggesting that they should explore and manipulate and

question may cause conflicts that can be resolved only by compromise--or

pretense

64

-62-

A second ethical concern has been cogently argued by Schlossman (1978):

potential "blaming of the victim" (Ryan, 1971). Even with intervention,

poor children may continue to fall below the levels of academic competence

attained by their more privileged peers. TAinsferring some responsibility

for instruction from the school to the home Carries the risk that poor

s achievement will be blamed on parents. Many programs and evaluation per-

sonnel are sensitive to the harm this might do, particularly to parents of

low self-esteem, and emphasize program evaluation, not parent evaluation.

There is a third ethical issue. Parents mayr,feel coerced to do things

that they, do not understand or that they disagree with. Although participa-

in parent education (and indeed in all parent involvement) is techni-

r

cally voluntary, it is unclear how much choice families really exercise in

deciding whether to participate, and, once enrolled, whether to follow the

suggestions of-program personnel. There is abundant evidence that for many

poor families, the school system represents a powerful-authority, one that

will greatly affect the lives of their children for many years. These

families also know that often the school personnel's opinions of the parents

and of parental cooperation and motivation will influehce their, response

to,the children. It takes courage to reject participation in a program that

I.-the school personnel clearly feel will be good for them. This is particu-

larly so with home visit programs. Once a home visitor enters the family's

home, it takes enormous courage on the parents' part, to challenge ort overtly

dismiss the advice given.

These-ethical issues have implications for program evaluation. If

indeed parent programs are an intrusion into child rearing, is not the

evaluation of effects on parents a similar intrusion--particularly if it

-63-

involves observing behavior in the home or rating it by iteria that involve

subjective judgments? If parents' ability to instruct r modify the behavior

of their child is influenced by more than e inf:rmation and knowledge they

have at hand, must not the other factors--personal, economic, and societal

--also be taken into account? 'And, finally, how an one tell, what happens

when the assessment. session is over? Does parents! behavior in a testing

or evaluation setting carry over into their daily behavior, or does it cease

as Soon as the evaluator leaves the scene?

In summary, several practical pointers emerge from the reports of our

respondents, First, it seems important to have a multifaceted evaluation

strategy that is'carefully matChed o the particular program.' Progress

toward the broad range of goals espouse by most 7arent programs can be

gauged only through different kinds of evaluation techniques. Parents dif-

fer'in their need for and ability to make use of :rogram services and are

therefore candidates for different assessment measures. And of course each

type of measure carried, with it certain characteristic sources of error.

Second, evaluatioD should focus on Vie prag.ra.m, not the parents. Pro-

gram directors continually stressed that the success of parent programs

depends upon the quality of the relationship, the sense of trust-and mutual

purpose, that is developed between parents and staff. The role of program

personnel is one of instruction and support for tarent and child. If learn-

ing does not occur, tf goals are not achieved, pr:gram staff are adamant

that the responsibility he clearly placed with program, not the parents.

At the same time, since the personnel resources available to evaluate

parent education programs are often confined to parents and staff,

-006

program staff urge evalultion by instruments that are short, easy to use,

66

-64-

- and readily analyzed to yield information useful for program improvement.

Hence a third principle: keep it simple.

Fourth, parents should be considered as agents rather than merely ob.-,

jects of evai4ation. More and more parent educayion programs find it use-/

ful to involve PACs and individual parents at every step in planning,

plementing, and evaluating-their own programs. Starting with oint needs

assessment, moving onto determining appropriate individual goals and a

usable system of service delivery, and finally assessing the impact of the

program, they have evolved the concept of education for pai4nts into educa-

tion with parents.

c

A

Y,

..

-657

NOTES ON SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION

This resource book is only a brief introduc:ion to issues in eValua-

ting programs for parents of young children. These intereS7-_ed pursuing

the topic further may therefore wish to consult additional sources.of in-

formation.

GENERAL 'SOURCES

Of the few general references on evgluatior. of prOgrams for parents,

one helpful source is in Infant Education: A aide for Hel-..7ing Handicapped

Children in the First Three Years '(Caldwell 5 Stednan, 1977:.' It treats'

early childhood intervention programs in general, assessment of young thil-4

dren, and specific programs designed to involve parents and young children9 -

in educational activities, and includes a fine a:count of the issues in

evaluating program effectiveness (Chapter IX). written by Caldwell, the

chapter first discusses the purposes of evaluation and then develops amodel

for formative evaluation of several programs. := is simply and clearly

written and integrates scholarly knowledge with :ommon sense.

A second helpful source is Handbook for Measurement ancl-Evaluation in

Early Childhood Education, by Goodwin ind Driscc:1.(1980)- This volume

provides a wide range of information on'early childhood assessment in general,

but Chapter,X focuses on evaluation'of parents involvement. While we m

disagree with some minor points made here, oVeri,:l it is as good a summary

of ev#luation options as we have found anywhere.

A third source of information is Teaching_Farents to Teach, edited by

Lilly and Trohanis (1976). While this volume ckes not have a section devotea

exclusively to issues of evaluation, it describe' nine ,outs-Landing programs

in detail and summarizes the procedures: used in each. Another work,

r

-66-

Parents and the Day Care Center (1969), by Adair and Eckstein, discusses

parent participation in terms of parents as actual and potential assets to,

the program. It, develops 'a parent group profile, a community profile, and

channels of communication for more accurate assessment of parental need.

A

The last chapter treats evaluat on questions.

In a brief but thoughtful paper presented at the_meeting of the Society

for Research in Child Development (1979), Levenstf discusses issues rele-

vant to programs for parents,, including design, implementation, and evalua-

tion,-draing on 14 years of short-term longitudinal and out-of-project

replication of her Mother-Child Home Program.o,,

Finally, in connection with early, childhood development programs and

services, Planning for Action, edited by McFadden (1972), contains ano

excellent article by Knitzer, which examines th2 ratiOnalerfor parent in-

. volvement, argues that parents should have greater control and decision-

making power,..and offers some ideas how this might be done. ,

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The systematic use of descriptiire data is the topic of Parents Are

Teachers by W. Becker (1971). This volume discusses instruc4 e

and-includes sample forms foy.recording behavior. While behavior may not

. . . / .

,_

be the 'focus-of some progtalt, the forms nevertheless suggest the types'y , .

, k

of things parent education programs might find, useful. Giesy, in A Guide

1 techniques

for Home Visitors (1970), also suggests how to document inpul: The Main

theme of this t ivibook is home sits and the recordkeeping in programs'that

rely upon this method.

A particularly useful source of information on documenting program

implementation comes from the Systems Development Corpdration.. ThisA

0.

-67-

evaluatidn group is currently completing a study of parental involvement

in four federal education programs. Although the total package of inter-

views they use to assess the impact of these programs may be far more com-

prehensive than any single program needs, it is a rich source of ideas. So,

too, is Partners With Parents, developed by Hewett (1979) to disseminate

the experience of Home Start personnel. This volume contains a chapter on

management, part of which treats evaluation and long-range planning. More-

over, the appendix includes examples of the types of evaluation form used.

OBSERVATION

Methods for observing parents are similar to those for observing chil-

dren. Although we can recommend no specific protocols, there are several

good general discussions of the usefulness of formal observation and pointers

on how to do it. A particularly good description of the rationale for such

observations and of methods for gathering and organizing them is Carinits

monograph Observation and Description: An Alternative Methodology for the

_Investigation,of Human Phenomena (1975). Another good discussion is found

iri Hutt and Hutt, Direct Observation and Measurement of Behavior (1970)..

Goodwin and Driscoll, n the Handbook for Measurement and Evaluation in

/.Early Childhood Education (1980), also include a chapter on observation

practices, and point out that observatidh is most useful as a complement

to other means of evaluation. In simple terms, the chapter outlines the

importance of observational measurement, describes formal and informal

approaches, and recounts the advantages and disadvantages of observation.

Several collections of observation systems are available. Most

systems focus on Child behavior, but some deal with parent -child inter-

action and may provide ideas for instrument development. Among-the better

'70 j

-687

.

. collections are Measures of Maturation, An Anthology of Early Childhood

Observation Instruments (Boyer et al., 1973), and Studying Behavior in

Natural Settings (Brandt, 1972).

LINKING PROGRAM TO OUTCOME

Among the guides and manuals for conducting self-studies are those

produced by the National Study of School Evaluation (1973) and the National

AssociatiOn of Secondary School Principals (Georgia:les, 197,8). These were

not written for use with parents, and so must be adapted somewhat, but the

ideas are ,sound.

Information on qualitative evaluationss inch:ded in several sources.

Perhaps the clearest presentation is found in Getting the Facts by Murphy

(1980). This book, intended for 'evaluators cdnside:ing invesigative

search, is readily adaptable to programs wishing to train parents for some

types of interviewing. A,secOnd source of ilermation is Intervilag: Its

Principles and Methods by Garrett (1972). Designed by the Family rvice

Association of America as a blsic test for teaching interviewing to pro-

fessionals and paraprofessionals, it can easily be -..sed also with parents.

OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Several additional sources that provide useful information should be

noted. The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC Network) is one

of the most valuable. ERIC encompasses a computer:1:dt information retrieval

-f system covering a wide range of published and unpublished material., The

system is described in NIE's publication ERIC: A Profile, and suggestions

onr

hOw to use the system are provided in Brown, Sit=s, and Yarborough (1975)

and Simmons (1975).. ERIC has 16 clearinghouses that collect, evaluate, and

A

distribute information on a particular topic area. Three of these that are

7,

-69-

relevant to programs for parents are listed below, with notes on the scope

of areas they cover.

ERIC Clearinghouse on the DisadvantagedColumbia University Teachers College

Box 40525 W. 120th Street:New York, New York 10027Telephone: (212),678-3780

e

Effects of disadvantaged experiences and environments, from birth onward;

academic, intellectual, and social performance of disadvantaged children

and youth from grade 3 through college entrance; programs...and practices that

provide learning experiences designed to compensatelor special 'problems of

disadvantaged; issues, programs, and practices related. (1),to economic and---

thenic discrimination, segregation, desegregation, and integration in educa--

tion; and (2) to redressing the curriculum imbalance in the treatment of

ethnic minority groups.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education

University of IllinoisCollege of Education805 W. Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana, Illinois 61801

Telephone: (217) 333-1386

Prenatal fadtors, parental behavior; the physical, psychological, social,

educational, and cultural development of children from birth throUgh the

primary grades; educationalheory, research, and practice:related to.the

development of young children.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation

Educational Testing_ ServicePrinceton, New Jersey 08540 is

Telephone.: (609) 921-9000 ext. 2182

Tests and other measurement deviCes; evaluation procedures and, techniques;

application of tests, measurement, or evaluation in educationalrojects

of programs.

More general information on the ERIC system and its other clearinghouses

is available from:

Educational Resources Information Center

(Central ERIC)National Institute of EducationWashington, D,C. 20208

Telephone: (202) 254-5040

7 ^

1

4.

-70-

TEST COLLECTION

The Educational Testing Service administers the Head Start Test Col-

lection, which was established to provide information about assessment

instruments for children from birth to nine years of age. Qualified persons

working in early childhood education'have access to the collection in person

dr via mail or .phone inquiries. The collection also pulgishes.bibliographies

on assessment topics relevant to programS for parents. These-include:

Measures of Child- Rearing Practices and Related Attitudes

Children's Attitudes toward Parents

Measures Pertaining to Environments.

For copies of these bibliographies or further information on the Head Start

.. Test Collection, write to:

Head Start Test CollectionEducational Testing ServicePrinceton, N.J. 08540

The Title I Technical Assistance Centers serving the ten regional areas

.of the United States are also sources of information on educational assess-

Went, particularly with respect to 'Title I evaluation.

Region 1: Connecticut, Maine,'Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Rhode Island, and Ve'rmont

-RMC Research Corporation400 Fayette Road-Hampton, N.H. 03842

Telephone: (603) 436=5385926-8888

Region II: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the VirginVirgin Islands

-EdIdcational Testing Service

Princeton, N.J. 08540Telephone: (609) 734-5117

73

IPA

1

Region III:

0 Region IV:

-71-

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,

West Virginia, and the District of Columbia

- National Test ing Service

2634 Chapel Hill Blvd.Durham, N.C. 27707

Telephone: (919) 493-3451

1 (800) 334-0077

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Sojtb Carolina, and Tennessee

- Educational Tes ing Service

Southern Regional Office250 Piedmont AvenueSuite 2020Atlanta, Georgia 3C326

Telephone: (404) 524-4501

Region V: Illinois, Indiana, %fichigan, Minnesota, '

.Ohio, and Wisconsin

- Educational Testing Service

1 American PlazaEvanston, Illinois 60201Telephie: (312) S59-7700

Region VI:, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,

and Texas

-Powell Associates'3724 JeffersonSuite 205 'Austin, Texas 78/31

- Telephone: (512) =53-7288 .

(800) 531 -5239

Region VII: Iowa, Kansa, Misscuri, and Nebraska

.-American Institute:. .for Research

P.O. ilpx 1113 .

Palo Alto, CA 94302Telephone: (415) .94 -0224

.

Regions VIII, Colorado-,- Moitana; North Dakota, South Dakota,

IX and X: Utah, and Wyoming ;Region VIII); Arizona,

.California, Hawaii, Ngvada, Guam, Trust Territory

of the Pacific Islands, and American SaMoa

(Region IX); and A:aska,.Idaho, Oregon, and

Washington (Region X)

-Northwest Regional Laboratory710 S.W. Second AvenuePortland, Oregon 9-2144

Telephone: (503) 248-6853

7

-73-

APPENDIX

o

INSTRUMENTS TO MEASURE PARENT EDUCATION

Tht following instruments are reviewed here:*

Instrutent Author(s)

Cognitive Home Environment Scale N. Radin and D. Weikart

High/Scope Parent-Child Interaction

Checklist and Ratings

Home Observation for Measurement B. Caldwell et al,

of the Environment.

Mutual Problem-Solving Task A.S. Epstein et al.

Parent_ as a Teacher Inventory R.D. StroM and H.B. Slaughter

and Profile ,

Parental Attitude Checklist R.D. Boyd and K.A. Stauber

,Parental- Behavior Inventory R.D. Boyd and K.A. Stauber

* An additional instrument, the Home Base Survey and Parent Survey, adapted

from the Follow Through Parent Education Model, was also reviewed in

earlier draft of this resource book. Unfortunately, the progr in which

it was developed has been discontinued and the survey is no long avail-

able.

75

V

.

TIfLE

4. .

..

COgnitive-KHome Environment Scale (CHES) _1-

(Maternal and paternal forms available)

4. .

.

AUTHOR VII

-

1

,

. 4,. .

- , ..

Norma Radin and Dak vid Weikart.

.. .

.

. .

_

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

.

School of Sodial Workalso available from

University of Michigan Tests in ITclreocfl.icloine

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 -

.#007267

DATE OF DEVELOPMENT.t.

.

Circa 1966

COPYRIGHT DATES Material not copyrighted .. I

_

COSTS(

Material available withouwcharge

o

.

.

PURPOSE

.

.

. ., 4 0

To measure the degree o' cormitive stimulation in the homeby probing attitudes, home activities, and. possessions

related to education

.

. .

, .

, .

WHO IS EVALUATED(Child or Parent)

Parelt.(mother,or father) J,-

.

.

.

SPECIAL TEATURES.OFTARGET POPULATION

The CHES was designed fof use with parents of disadvantagedchildren in a compensatory pfesCool program.

4 .

FORMAT

,

. .

The CHES is a semi structured questionnaire, adapted fromthe Wolf Environmental Process Variable Scale. It contains

25 items scored on a 7-point rating scale.- =

.

,

. .

.

.

!IOW ADMINftTERED(including Home),

. if

.,

...

IntervieWer 66a0 pare5t's answers to questionnaire.

. P

. . .

.

.

'

WIJO ADMINISTERSs

. .

- °

Interviewer, such as a.teacher or'external evaluator. . _

I 76

.-75--

'TRAINING

NECESS.k.Ri FOR

ADMINISTRATION-

The CHES is administered entirely as a questionnaire, asksspecific questions about paren: and child behavior, anddoes not involve rating genera: characteristics or observingbehaviorr,i Hence, interviewing skills are necessary foradministration, but no formal :raining with the instrument isrequired.

-

TIME TO ADMINISTER , .

.

30 minutes °

4 .

CON'TEVT :

SUBTESTS

.

The variables examined include parental attitudes toward gildand learning, home activities, possessions. The questions

cover such areas as the availaHlity of educational and craft

items to the child, the grades the parent wants andexpects the child to receive ir. school, the kinds of actitiv-ities the child shares with the rest of the family, and theparent's plans for the child's future education.

.

, .

*GOALS FOR WHICHINSTRISEN.7 ISAPPROPRIATE

(Check Where

Applicable)

6

.

..

-

..

,...

.,

. 4

.

Focus Toward Child: ",- ...

. (1) / X / Change in Knowledge

..(2) / X / ,Change in Attitude

(3) / X / Change in Functicn

_,

. .

Focus Toward School Services and Personnel:

- ,(4) / / Change in Knowledge -.

, .

(5) / / Change in Attitude

(6) / / Change in Functica

..

Focus Toward Personal Needs of Parents as Adults:

(7) / / Change in Knowled-g-e -

'(8) / / Change in Attitude

(9) / / Change in )Functin .

. :

77 I'.

-76-

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARENT CHANGE AND

CHILD CHANGE

..

e

.

The CHES is based on the assumption that changes in parentalattitudes and child rearing practices may enhance thestimulas.ion of the home environment and, in turn, fosterthe cognitive competence of the child.

.

.

b----- 4

FORMAT FOROFPRESENTATION' Ap

RESULTS I'

..

The results are, primarily presented as factor scores.Analysis using scores on individual items would also consti-tute an appropriate use of this instrument. Computing atotal CHES score is not recommended as it primarily reflectsFactor I, Educational Materials in the Home.

,

°

INFORMATIONAVAILABLE FORADMINISTRATIONAND USE

See Coding Manual and FinalReport (N.Radin aN H. Sonquist,"Ypsilanti Public Schools ,gale Preschool Program," Final

Report, March 1968).

...

s'

. .

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONRELIABILITY AND

VALIDITY ,9

e

Reliability: .

A reliability test ( Radin and Sonquist, 1968) yielded agree-

ment between two independent scorers on 91% of the items. In

addition, interobserver reliability on the CHES scores was

94.9% (Epstein and Radin, 1974).,,

Validity:.

,

The construct validity has been suggested by a number of

studies (Epstein and Radin, 1974).

Factor analyses yielded: Educational Materials in the'Hothe,

Grades Expected, Future Expectations, Educationally - OrientedActivities, and Direct Teaching. .

.

There has been no other technical work to date:

.

. - .

.

..

. - .

_ ..

-77-

CULTURAL.CONSIDERATIONS

Inasmuch as it emphasizes questions about birthday presents,library cards, and encyclopedias in the home, the CHES appearsto be biased toward middle-class values. However, it has beenused in several studies with lower-class families, and theresearchers have observed that "significant and predictablesocial class differences emerged on four of the five factors,indicating that the CHES is sensitive to the fact that the -

degree of cognitive stimulation in the home diminishes withdecreasesin social class status." (Radin and Epstein, 1975)

PCTENTIALUSES

The CHES has been used in a range"of intervention studiesin conjunction with other instruments: (1) to evaluatematernal involvement in a compensatory preschool program;'(2) to measure pre- and post-intervention changes in child-rearing attitudes and,praeices of lower-class mothers of pre-school children; (3) to examine the relationship of paternalresponses to a child-rearing questionnaire with observedpaternal behavior and measures of child competence. Thedevelopers believe the CHES could be useful as a before andafter measure to determine the impact of a program' directedat enhancing parents' perceptions of themselves as teachersand in predicting the cognitive competence of children.

RFERENCES

I.

Related Research:

Epstein, A.S. & Radin, N., "Paternal Questionnaire Data andthe Preschool Child," University of Michigan, 1.975.Radin, N., "Child Rearing Antecedents of Cognitive Development

in Lower-Class Preschool Children." Doctoral dissertation.*University of Michigan, 1969a. (University Microfilms, 1970,

No, 70-4170)Radin, N., "The Impact of a Kindergarten Home CounselingIrogram," Exceptional Children, 1969b, 36, 251-256.

Radin, N., "Three Degrees of Maternal Involvement in a

Preschool Program: Impact on Mothers and Children," Child

Development, 1972, 43, 1355-1364.Radin, N. & Epstein, A.S., "Observed Paternal Behavior withPreschool Children," University of Michigan, Final Report,

April 1975.Wittes, G. & Radin, N., "Two Approaches to Group Work WithParents in a Compensatory Preschool Program," Social Work,

16 1, January 1971, pp. A2-50.

Reviews:

Johnson,Orval G., Tests and Measurements in.Child Development:Handbook II, Volume 2.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,

1976, p. 757-759.

COWENTS

4 -

This is one of the few, measures that p orts to assess'

father-child interaction.

7

I-78-

TITLE.

._ .

..

.

High/ScOpe Parent-Child Interaction Checklist .

and Ratingi (PCIC)

,

AUTHOR - .

. ..

__

-i -

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

c

. 1

Hie/Scope Educational Research Foundation600,North River StreetYps'lanti, Michigan 48197

..

c''

DATE-0F 'DEVELOPMENT

. -.....

1977o .

COPYRIGHT DATES 6, Material not copyrighted

MATERIALSAND COSTSManual and materials available from High/Scope: In lieuof fees, users are asked to share their findings.

.

PURPOSE

,

.

.

To measure the dimensions of parent-child interaction during

rcutine caregiving activities

,

.

..

-

WHO IS EVALUATED(Child or Parentl

.

Parents ane children. 4 .

4. . _

.

SPECIAL FEATURES OF

TARGET POPULATION

The instrument was originally developed for'researcb inparent-child intel-actien with parents of infants and toddlers

. .

FORMAT

.

Parents and childrell ark videotaped.at'home during a feeding

or diapering situation, then the taped interactions are coded

ot 10-second intervals according to several checklist cate-

gories. The observer also rates the incidence of severalmore general behaviors from low to high on a S-point scale.

HOW ADMINISTERED(I-ncluding Home)

.

Parents and children are videotaped at home.

.

WHO ADMINISTERSObserver,who in the original research was a graduate student

assistant

.6_

----

-79-

TRAININGI NECESSARY FORI ADMINISTRATION

.

A moderate amount of training is necessary to develop reliable

observers familiar with the coding categories. --,..

.

1

Tim.:.--. TO. ADMLNISTERApproximately 15 Minutes

,

CONTENT:.

SIJBTESTS

. . .

In addition to coding the Checklist categories of ,physical

and verbal interactions, affect, and patterns of initiation-response, observers are asked to rate several more general

qualities of the same activity, such as the overall comfortand safety of the environment, stimulation in the environment,

.effectiveness of parent as problem-solver.I

r

/.

.

.

.

GOALS FOR WHICHINSTRUgENT ISAPPROPRIATE

.

,

(Check WhereApplicable) ,

'

.

.

.

Focus Toward Child:

CI) / X/ Change in Knowledge as..

. .

(.2) /V Change in Attitude .

.

C3) /77 ,Change in Function .

1..'

t..

Focus Toward scheti Services'and Personnel:

/ / Change in Knowledge

. ...

C / / Change in Attitude

1 (6) / / Change in Function .

.

.

.Focus Toward Personal Needl_of Parents as Adults:

..

(7) / / Change in Knowledge

(8) / / Change in Attitude.

. /---(9) / / Change in Function

.

1

.

.

81

R4LATIONSHIV BETWEENPARENT CHANGE ANDCHILD CHANGE

Vb.

-8

Use of the PCIC is b sed on the: assumption tl-at categories

refleCt dimensions o parent-child interaction ich are sal-..

ient in children's g owth-as learners. !

°

FoR.\LAT FOR

PRESENTATION OFRESULTS

ItIC observation sheet and PCI r'ting sheet for individual

results a

INFORMATIONAVAILABLE FORADMINISTRATIONAND USE

.4

:

Manual on admfnistration an scoring available front Hip/Scope

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONRELIABILITY ANDVALIDITY

r

Reliability: For tlfe Checklist, inter observerdefined as percentage of agreement, ranged from 76.5%.to 100%,

with as mean overall scale of 88.4°,0., For the Retirgs, inter-observer reliability ranged from 80% to 100%, w an average

across all scales of 91.4%.

Validity: T ere has been no other technical work to date.

41.

b

1

o

4

,e4fr

I

- -81-

car:au. .

CONSIDERATIONS

The_aUthors intended to make the instrument as universal aspossible:,

I

The instrument could be used as a pre- and post-measure'todocument changes in parents' style of interaction.

.P9iTir:ALUSES ,

REFERENCES

Related research

Epstein, Ann S. ,.Evans, Judith, "Parent-aild Interactionand Children's Learning," in The High /Stop:; Report,,No. 4141

1979, pp. 39-44.

Reviews

No pub3ished reviews .available to date

a,

CO>DDEiS

pigh/Scope has developed several other means of assessingarent education that may be of potential interest:

'Mhtual.Troblem-Solving TaskInfant EdOtation Interview

.0

44041

4

tso

-82-

TITLE ,

.

Home Base SurVey and Parent Survey.

._.

v).

AUTHOR

.

.

NI"

..

Adapted from the Follow Through Patera Education Model:

Home Environment Review. -

\,_.k.

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

.

,.

a ,

Project Home BapeYakima Public Schools *.

104 N. 4th Ave..; -

Yakima, Washington' 9t902 . ...

.

..f.- ,

DATE OF DEVELOPOENT. ----.

.

I97S.

..

COPIRiGHT pAT6 . Material not copyrighted

M.kTENIALS ADD COSTS

.. .

.

Materials available without chargt -ct.---

.

.

.

.

PURPOSE

.

.

To, measure the success of the program in supporting andenhancing the mother's parenting/teaching behayior

,.

. ..4

,

WHO IS EVALUATED .

(Child Qr Parent)

..

'arent ,...'

.

.

. . - -

...,

SPECIAL FEATURES OFTARGET POPULATION

These surveys were designed for use with children from low-

income homes. \ . 'r

.

FOR'

.. .

...

lt

The surveys consist of a serie-of brif questions which areanswered on a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree,plus a series of open-ended questions soliciting parent 1compents, i

1

HOWADMINISTERBD(Including-

me)

.

, . .

The interviewqr records parents' answers to the questionnaire..

and makes som*more global observations about stimulationavailable in the home.

. ..

, $..

WHO'ADMINISTE

.

9"..,

-

Paraprofessional parent educator in the home.

.

.

.

; 8.-_-',

-83-

TRAININGNECESSARY FORADMINISTRATION

.

,

f

.

As part of their general duties, paraprofessional parent

educators receive pre- and inservice training. No

specialized training is required to administer the surveys.

TIME TO ADMINISTER'

.

30 minutes v

0

CONTENT: .

SUBTESTS

-

. ' '

.

.

.

The Home Base Survey collects information on child develop-

ment, scho. .elated activities and teaching. In the..,

parent sur y, parentsare asked how their attitudes have

changed, how the child's behavior has changed, perception

'of self as teacher, learning stimuli available in the

home environment.

'1%-,..... .

) .

.

A

A

41

,..

. .

I

,

'GOALS FOR WHICH

INSTRUMENT .IS

,APPROPRIATE

(Check .Where. Applicable)

v-

. a ,

,,

. IL

..

,, :

.

.-

.

,

.

.

.

.

. . &

Focus Toward Child: >

,

C1)77-7 Change in Knowledge.

4

v

,

(2) /X / Change'iwAttitude

(3) IX Change in Function.

.

, c .

- -Focus Toward School Services and Personnel:

(4) / / Change in Knowledge .

\.. .

(S) / --./ Change in Attitude ..

%. .

(6),/ / 'Change in Function .

.

Focus Toward Personal Needs of arents as Adults:,..,

'(7) / / Change in Knowledge 't.

.

(8Y / / 4Ch2nge in ,

a

..

.

t,(9) / / Change in Function. -.

.

.e

2 .

. .

.

1-WSJ

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARENT CHANCE ANDCH'ILD CHANGE

0

N

.

\

One premise of this program is that parent change will be

reflected by child change. Hence, the program has set a

concrete objeCtive: children who have been exposed to the homeintervention/parent education activities will be able to;per-

form better on the Preschool Inventory (Educational Testing

Service, Princeton, N.J., l967) with statistical significanceset at the %OS level'of confidence. In addition, children

will perform 92.5% of the tasks taught them by. their mothers,measured by means of an interview and observation instrumentcompleted by the parent educator following each homevisit.

. . .

FORMAT FORPRESENTATION OFRESULTS

,

.

The Home Base Survey is used primarily as an initial screening.instrument but could be compared post-intervention to document

changes. The Parent Survey is compiled and presented as

aggregate percentages. .

.c,.

,

INFORMATIONAVAILABLE FORADMINISTRATIONAND USE .

.

,

None available.

.

.

... t

t .

.

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONRELIABILITY :AND

VALIDITY

..

,

.-

.

.

<

-

4.

.

, .

.

' -r

.

. . rA

No technical work. has been done to date.

:'

, .

.

. .

.

,,

1'.

.

,

,

.',

,

.

.

...

. . ,

.

v)..._

.

. , ,

.

. ..

.

A

. ..

--\ ( .

. !)

-5 '..

..

.

CULTURALCONSIDERATIONS

POTENTIALUSES

O

-85-

These surveys have been used pre- and post-intervention inconjunction with direct measures of child change, suct'asCaldwell's Preschool Inventory and the Alpern § BollDevelopmental Profile.

REtt-EIIEZCES

- I

es

Related research:

No additional citations are available.

Reviews:

No .publisheii reviews available to date

COn-aNTS

la

These veys, aimed,at documenting parent satisfaction and

'home sti ulation, are\easy to administer, and to respond to,

and appea to provide us.efill information. Its develdf3ers,

however, are not completely satisfied with thei and have re-vised them several times, feeling unaoie to find a standard-ized instrument that can measure program impact.

t.

K

-86-

TITLEHome Observation for Measurement of the Environment

Infant Version (ages 0-3)Preschool Version (ages 3-6)

4

AUTHORInfant Version: B. Caldwell, J. Heider, and B. Kaplan(19661ersion); B. Caldwell, R. Bradley, and R. Elardo(1972 version). Ar

Preschool Version: B." Caldwell and R. Bradley

4

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

Center for Child Development and EducationUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock814. Sherman

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

DATE OF DEVELOPMENT

Ar

Infant Version: 1966, revised in 1972

Preschool Version: 196.8, revised in 1978

1

COPYRIGHT DATES 197849#

MATERIALS AND COSTS SP-ecimen Set - $3.00

To measure the qualitji d quantity of stimulation found inthe early home environmen- sampling aspects of thesocial, emotional, and co itive support available to ayoung child within his or h r home

IP

Intended Primarily as a scree ing iilStrument-

WHO IS EVALUATED Parent and child interacting in home(Child or Parent)

o

SPECIAL FEATURES OFTARGET POPULATION

FORMAT

This instrument was designed for use with children at'risk ofdevelopmental dflay due to environmental deprivation.

-sr

Infant: Consistsf a checklist of 45 items or statements(originally 72 items) which the interviewer scoresas yes or no

. ,

Preschool: Consi

.

ts of a checklist of 55 items (originally80 items which the interviewer scores as yes or no

HOW ADMINISTERED(Including Home)

Both versions are completed by a single external evaluatorthrough interviews and observation with both the parentand ehild present .in the home. 4

Interviewer

-87-

TRAININGNECESSARY FORADMINISTRATION

Interviewers are not required to have professional background,

but practice in the use of this instrument is necessary forvalid data collection because the instrument is scored on ayes/nobasis and does not involve gradations within an item.Training to administer HOME can be fairly brief.

TIME TO ADMINISTER Approximately one hour

CONTENT:

SUBTESTS

4

41,

The selection of items was guided by empirical evidence ofthe importance of certain types of,experience for .nourishingthe behavioral development of the child. Items were chosen

to represent these areas: frequency and stability of adulttontact; amount of developmental and vocal stimulation; needgratification; emotional climate; avoidance of restrictionon ma-tor and exploratory behavior; available play materials;and home characteristics indicative of parental concern with

achievement. For example, observer notes mother's use-ofphysical punishment; whether child is encouraged to learn

colors or how mother expresses warmth to !End;whether home appears safe and reasonably clean; whit types

of books and toys are available.

as ,

GOALS TOR WHICHrNSTRUME IS

APPROPRI

(Check WhereApplicable)

. it,

Focus Toward Child:

(i) x Change in Knowledge

(2) /x / Change in Attitude

(3) Z X / ,Change in Function

Focus Toward School Services and Personnel:.

-Il

(4)

(5)

(6)01. )

/ / ,Change ih Knowledte

/ ./ Change' in Attitude

11)lhange/ / in Function

Focus Tova93.Personal Needs of Parents as Adults:-,

(7) 'Change in Knowledge /-/ /

(8) / / Change in Attitude

(9) Changein Function/' j

).Pfl

vs-

-88-

RELATIONSHIP BETKEENPARENT CHANGE ANDCHILD CHANGE

Use of this instrument is based on the assumption that changein parent knowledge and understanding will ultimately padto, changes in the child's-developmental status. It'is impor- -

tent to note that the instrument itself does not directlymeasure child changes, and is therefore often used in conjunc-tion with other measures of child change.'

FORMAT FORPRESENTATION OFRESULTS

The final product may be reported as a single totalnumerical score, or results may be given as factor scores.

INFORMATIONAVAILABLE FOR

ADMINISTRATIONAND USE

See "Instructions for Administration," /pp. 88-115,in HomeObservation for Measurement of the Environment,

Bettye M, Caldwell, 1978.

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONR40IABILITY AND

VALIDITY

4

?Sycho ric characteristics of the HONE have been examined

extensiv , based on data collected en families in Little Rock,

Arkansas (I .t version 174 families; Preschool version -

238 families) . the ins ent has been through a number of,standardization proce ures.

Reliability: Infant version--A Kuder - Richardson 20 coefficient

was computed at r=.89 for the total scale. For the subscales,reliability ranged from very low to very high, e.g., r=.44(subscale III, Organization of Physical and Temporal Environ-ment) to r=.89 (subscale VI, Opportunities for Variety in

Daily Stimulation). Preschool version: A Kuder-Richardson20 coefficient was computed at r=.93 for the total scale. For

the tubscales, reliability ranged from very low to very high,

e.g., r=.53 (Sul.,scale VI, Modeling and Encouragement of Social

Staturity) to r=.83 (Subscale Ii, Physical Environment: Safe,

Clean, and Conducive to Development).Validity: Infant version--The a.:thors report high correlations

with IQ (up to .83) and language (up to .64). Moderate cor-

relations were reported with SES. Has been reported to disciim.inate between high risk and normal homes. Preschool version-Authors report high correlations with IQ (up to .64). Moderat

correlations with later achievement (up -do .SS) and with SES

were also reported.Factor analysis of the infant version yielded: 1. emotional and

verbal responsivity of the mother; 2. avoidance of restrictionand punishment; 3. organization of the physical and temporalenvironment;-4. provision of appropriate play materials; S.maternal involvement with child; 6. opportunities for vericty

in daily stimulation. ,

Factor analysis of the preschool version resulted in:1. stimulation through toys, games, and materials; 2. languagestimulation; 3. physical environment; 4, pride, affection, andwarmth; S. stimulation of academic behavior; 6. modeling andencouraging of.social maturity; 8. variety of stimulation;

9. physical punishment. - i .

1

ger -89-

CULTURALCONSIDERATIONS

.

.

The authors are sensitive to issues of discrimination whichmay occur in a measure of the "quality of life." Caldwell(1978) states that "every attempt was made to include itemsthat represent stimulation and support but do not necessarilymean money, social status, or education. Thps, from thestandpoint of the Inventory, a trip to the grocery store getsas much credit as-a trip to the art museum, in that both arelikely to be interesting., informative, and stimulating to theyoung child.'

POTENTIAL.

USES

1,

The infant version of HOME has been used in a variety ofresearch, including sm-:dies of malnutrition, language' develop-meat, cognitive dtvelrpment, school competence, high riskfamilies, and program evaluation. While the actual extent ofuse is difficult to g.s.:ge, it is known to be quite large,with the instruments 'nsving been translated into several for-eign languages for use in other countries. 0 ,

REFERENCES P.

.

.

.

,.

Related Researth:

Bradley, R.,& Caldwell, B. Early home environment and changesin mental test performance in children from 6 to 36 months.Developmental Psychol:gy, -1-9/6, 12, 93-97.

Bradley, R.,& Caldwell. B. Home observation for measurement

of the environment: k validation study of screening

efficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977.81(5), 417-420.

Caldwell, B. Home observation far measurement of theenvironment, 1978.

Caldwell, B., Elardo, F., F. Ward°, R, "The Longitudinal

Observation and Intenention Study: A Preliminary Report."Presented at the meetLng of the Southeastern Conference onResearch in Child Eeelopment, Williamsburg, Virginia,April, 1972. .

Caldwell, B .., Heider, :., & Kiplan, B. "The Inventory of'

Home Stimulation." Flmer presented at the meeting of theAmerican Psy.cholOgical Association, September 1966.

Elardo, R.,-Bradley, R., & ;aldwell, B. relation ofinfants' home environrents to mentartest performance from6 to 36 months. A ic7gitudinal analysis. Cifild Development;

1975, 46, 71-76.

Reviews: ___

Johnson, Orval G., Tests and Measurements in Child Develop-;ant. HAndbonk II, \:lume 2511n_FIanci5 :.

_

.

,

-........)

,

.

. Publishers, 1976, pp. 796 -799._Johnson, Terri Z., Ann:tated Directory of EnvironmentalAssessment Instruments, Lndividualized Data $ase, University'Research Group at Pac:fic State Hospital, Pomona, Calif-

ornia, September 19.78.1

.

TITLE

AUTHOR

-90-

Mutual Problem-Solving Task (MPS').

Anne S. Epstein, Pam Schwartz, Judith Meece

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

DATE OP D LOMENT

High/Scope ducational Research Foundation.600 North River StreetYpsilanti, Michigan 48197

1975

.COPYRIGHT.DATES-

MATERIALS AND COSTS

ARPOSE

Material not copyrighted.

A manual on development and administration, includingdefinitions of coding categories and code sheets, isavailable from High/Scope. In lieu of fees, users are

requested to share their `findings.

To examine the variety of mother-child inte:action andteaching styles used in accomplishing a particular task

WHO IS EVALUATED(Child or Parent)

SPECIAL FEATURES OFTARGET POPULATION

J.

FORMAT I

HOW ADMINISTERED(Including Home) .

Parent and child in home

The instrument was Originally developed as a follow-up mea-sure of mother-child interactior in 53 working-Lass familieswY o participated in the 1968-70 Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infar.t%

Education Project.

The MPST involves systematically observing tother-childinteraction durinki a cookie-baking activity. Cookie - baking

was designed to be a standard situation analcgoti to homevisit 'teaching' situationsPin the infant education program.Observers introduce themselves tq both the r,ct,her'and the

outlining the research 'procedure.

introtirr:t-aryre

?Tire interviewer observes mother-child interactions at homeduring prescribed cookie-baking activity, c:des behavior at10-second and 5-minute intervals, fill's out a ra4ing scale,and conducts an interview consisting of-open-ended ques'tions.

WHO'ADMINISTERS'Interviewer -- in the original research, these were graduatesttdenr assistants -- who are trained in using the instiu-me t

-91-

'TRAINING

NECESSARY FORADMINISTRATION

In the original research, the explicit instructions for the in..

terviewers includdd about 40 hrs, of. training in administering

and coding. Because administration is done as live observationstraining is relatively important, but can be dypne locally. A .

complicated series of categories must be mastered to code. the

style and content of both mother's and child's behavior. The

major coding groups, each with several categories, are affect,

task involvement, requests for assistance, and responses"giving

assistance. In addition, the behaviors are categorized asverbal and/or physiCal, supportive or restrictive, andcon-

nAgient or divergent.

_TIME TO ADMINISTER

V

30 to 60 minutes.

CONTENT:

SUBTESTS

The MPST measure everal aspects of a mother's teaching style

and the mutual inflOence between mothers and children. Four

separate measures areincluded: Interacticn-:.ategory System,_

Content Checklist, Rating Scale, and Maternal Interview. It

focuses on poSitive and negative verbal communication, effec-

tiveness of communicz)tion, patterns of initiation-response and

levels of activity-passivity of mother and child. For instance

the Maternal Interview asks about the kinds of activities which

the mother and child share, the appropriateness of, maternal

expectations and behavior, and the mother's a,,areness of how

she interacts with her child.

GOALS FOR WHICHINSTRUMENT ISAPPROPRIATE

(Chek WhereApplicable)

411

Focus Toward Child:

Cl) / X / Change in Knowledge

(2) ; X/ Change. in Attitude

(3) / X / Change in Function

Focus-Toward School Services and Personnel:

(4) Change in Knowledge/ /

(5) Change in Attitude./ /

(6) Change in Function/ /

focus Toward Personal Needs of Parents as Adulies:

(7) / Change in,Knowledge

(8) / / Change in-Attitude

(9) / 4 Change in function'

9`-'

-92-.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARENT CHANGE ANDCHILD CHANGE

. .-

.

:

-

.The atlthors state that "the purpose of this measure is-to -.

determine whetter mothers are able tc support aeil children's

goal-directed behavior rather than instruct themin a parti-rqcular task." It is alsb based on belief mothers' behavior

and children's. performance are reciprocal -- continuouhyon aged in a process of mutual initiation and response.

6

4 .

FORMAT FORPRESZNTATION OFREBE'L'SREBE'L'S

,

.

The MPST was origindlly developed for follOW-up study of aparent-infant program, and the findings were presented as anaggregate. They cre preently being included in a.monograph

-for dissemination to professional.

1,

..

-.

INFORMATIONAVAILABLE FOR '

ADMIN:STRATIONAND USE

The Mutual Problem-Solving Task -Development, InstrumentPr15-eeduresatieRTliability," A. pstein, P. Schwaftz,-,T:-

Meece, High/Scop2 Educational Research Foundation, February,1977. . °

.

.

.

c

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

' STANDARDIZATION,RELIAB:LITY ANDVALIDITY .

.

_

--.

0

.

.

.

.

.

<3* t

I

1 .

.

Reliability: Interob4erver reliability Was computed usingCartright's (1.956) alphay.averaging 93.0% in ceding mothers'

behavior and 19.5 %. in.coding children'S behavior. The avelige

across all catOcities combined was 92.4%.---lk

, .- , -t,..

Validity: .There has'been no other technidal work to date.

-

..

'

_ .

.

. .

et

$1

t . .. I

i- .

\. s

.-..../me,

R)

(,o. 6

4.

..: .1 )o

. .

1

.. - .

-93-

CULTURALCQNSIDERATIONS

O

The authors'interded to make the instrument as universal as

possiSle. For instance, the recipes used in the MPST are illus-trated and color-coded so that the motl-ers,-some of whom can-

not reed, as well as tle children who have difficulty reading,

can still follow the recipe without having to ask the\observer

to read it fox them. A choice of two re pes is offered, and

all the necessary,ingredients and utens s are provided to

insure standordization.

I

POTENTIALI USES

Although the MPST was originally developed for a longitudinalevaluation of mothers and first graders who had -been in aparent-infant prcgram, it may,talso be used for evaluation with

parents, needs assessment, or teaching and training activities.

The authors believe that its complexity will permit numerouskinds of data analyses to be performed. Some possibilities

include: comparing groups on the frequency of their beha4orin various categories and their freque #cies of different

responses to interview questions; examining patterns of initia-

tion and response in mother-child interactions ane perhans de-

veloping "typologies" of interactive styles; and studying therelationship between these patterns of mother-child interaction

and measures of the child's learning. Hotvever: the complexity

of the instrument and its scoring procedures may also limit

its usefulne%. The uagest simplifying the instru-

ment and adap ing it to users' needs, for imstance by stdect-ing certain aspects of the coding categories.

REFERENCES

I

Related Research 1

. -4stein, Ann S. E Evans, Judith, "Parent-Child Interactiop-

Children's Learning," in The High/Scope Report, No.

4, 1979, pp. 39-44.

.Elostein,AnnS.,Sclwartz,Pap,&Meece, Judith, "The Mutual

Problem-Solving Task: Development, Instrument Procedures

& Reliability," High/Scope Educational Research Foundation,

Ypsilanti, Michigan, February, 1977. 4

Reviews

No published reviews available to date

4

1

ccn.fE.Yr

H.gh/Scope has developed several other mea.s of assessingpa ent education that may be of potential interest. These

in Jude:

High/Scope Parent-Child ,IMeraction-Checklist and

Ratings (for chila?*en 6-2); Infant Educatibn

Interview, 0

4

,L.

-94-.

TITLEParent-As A eacher Inventory.(PAAT) andParent, As a Teacher Profile

.

AUTHOR

.

.

Robert D. Strom and Helen B. Slaughter

. ,_'

DISTRIBUTION SOURCE

.

Department of EducationState Univetsity

Tempe, Arizona 85281-

%

DATE OF DEVELOPMENT

NForm A - 1972; revised fo Form B - 1974 ,

COPYRIarT DATES Material not copyrigh ed i

.

MATERLALS ND COSTSParent 'As a Teacher Inventory) Both available for

Parent As a Teachet Profile ) research without charge

PURPOSE

To measure child-rearing expectations and the impact of Paren'education upon parent-child interaction variables

. . .

. . .

Intended asia.means for assessing parental strengths andneeds in rearing preschool children .

. ,

WHO IS EVALUATED(Child or Parent)

Parent

SPECIAL FEkTURES OFTARGET POPULATION

The ,instrument was originally develglid for use in a'TitleI program that enrolled a hi roption'of children ofMexicillAmerican and Native n heritage.

FORM_ki

_. 4*

The instrument iitemsan attiL de scale of items in which.

individual parents o Ares hoolers or pri' ry students des-

cribe their feelings aba. aspects of the parent -child int.-r_of ..-11-. 4'.., - - .:arrive cyrem, their cri'teria'

child behavior and their value Preferences' an. frustrations,

concerning child behavior. .

lc

,

HOW ADMINISTERED.

(Including Hone).

-

The test, be_administered'In groups or iv ually.

\L___....------

k . ,

L___,, a

WHO ADMINIST En___-- '

.

L ,

.

Interviewer or self-admirrtered. ,

./ 0 .

1

-9S-

iTRAMN'TNECESSARY FOR,ADMINISTRATION

For self-administration, no training is needed. The instu,-

ment was designed to be easily read and understood.

Administration by an interviewer usually relies on a program

staff member ,who would be sensitive to-parents' comments.

T./1T: TO ADMIgISTER 15 to 30 minutes depending on method of administration

CONTENT:

SUBTESTS

Parents are asked about their responses to a wide variety of

_specific interactions with their child. The AccoanyingProfile divides the responses into 5 areas of-partnt

curriculum with 10 items each: (1) parental acceptance of

Child's creative development; (2) frustration about Chrld-

. rearing; (3) parent feelings about control and discipline;

(4) understanding of C.6ildren's,play and its influence on

child developmeht; (5 parental(self-confidence as a teacher.

In 'sum, the PAAT explores what parents expect Pf their child

and how they perceive themselves as teachers.

o

GOALSJO,R,WHIC1-1

INSTRUENT ISAPPROPRLATE'

.

(Check WhereApplicable)

focus Toward Child:

Change in Knowledge

Change in Attitude

Change'` h Function

'-- 'Focus Toward Schopi Services and

'(4) / / Change in Knowledge

(5),/ /' Change in Attitude

Ask,

(6) / / Change in Function

0°

Personnel:

Focus Toward Personal Needs of -Parents

(7) rX/' Change in(KnowlEdge

/ X/ Change in Attitude

(9) /77 Change in Function

as Adults:

S.

-96-

l

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARENT CHANGE ANDC H:LD 0.1ANGE

.

.

.

....---

.-

.

..' .-

,The .instrument was developed from an' extensive search of the

literature regarding aspects of a(parent's attitudes and be-havior that .influence chile development. Because thesevariables are seen as inter-related, the PAAT fOcuses onparent-child interaction asa system rather than upon either.parents or children as separate agents.

..

,

.

.

.

.

.

. .

..

.

% .

*

FCR!,(.AT FOR

PRESENTATION OF'RES:LTS

.

_

,

Each inm has four possible answers which are assigned anumerical value .9f 4, 3, 2, or,1: Strong yes, fires, no,

strong no. A total numerical score is obtainedby summingthe values of all 50 items. A numerical score can also bederived for each of-the five subsets. The authors feel thatinformation provided by' the latter approach is more readily,used by parents. .

,

INFDRYATION ,

,sAY'T.!..BLE FOR'

Aas::NISTPATION

AN: USE '

See "Administration.and Scoring," in Strob, R.D. and H.B.Slaughter, The Development of'the PAAT Inventory, 1976, pp.15-17. The PAAT Profile is intended to accompany the Inven-tory to insure uniformity of - interpretation as a guide forfeedbatk to the individual parent, and as an aid to prOgramplanning." , . 4

)

TECHNILALSOALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONRELIA3ILITY ANDALIDITY.

..

. '

.

.

The PAAT Inventory has been,qeld-tested in a number of ESEATitle I projects in the Southwest. It' is one of few instru-

ments which have received some Systematic attention to

quality'control. '.<,

4.Reliabili y: Reliability of the instrument appears fairlyhigh, with several studies yielding reliability coefficientsranging from .76 to .8g.

.

Validity uA validity measure (Johnsop/, 1975) indicated1 i

60% consonance between feelings and'behavior. .

.

.

.

. ,

et1TURki-

CMIDERATIONS

. .

,

. %,,.

.,

.

.

, .

St rot an\Slaughter (1976) observe that "differences in childrearing expectations related to ethnic and'social, class member-ship may influence the success of particular parent educationstrategie." The instrument provides useful information fotassessing and specifying the effect of cultural, socioeconomicstatus, ethnic, and sex role variables upon child-rearingbeliefS'and practices. PAAT has been translated into French,Spanish, Navajo, Hopi, Italian, and Gilceek versions. ,

. ..

.,

..

,

,

,. .

.

1

-97-

*+.

POTENT IAL

USES '

The authors believe that data from the PAAT identify parents'

teaching strengths and needs in a form -that edUcators cap use

foc guidance and curriculum-planning. It has also proved

useful as a measure of changes in the abilities and attitudes

of parents 4ich result from training programs. In the Pentand'Child Education Project (PACE) in Tucson; the PAAT was

used in conjunction with Caldwell'S"-Preschool Inventory Apd a

questionnaire for parents' evaluation of the program.

REFERENCES

A

Related research:a

Elmquist, W. "An Asses'sment of Angloz-American Parent Child-

rearing Feelings and Behaviors." Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation. Arizona State University, Tempe, 1;73.

Johnson 4A. "An Assessment of Mexican-,American Parent Child-

rearing Feelings and Behaviors."' Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation. Arizona State University, Tempe, 1375.

Slaughter., H.B. "The Parent As a Teacher Inventory Field

Study." Mimeographed report. Research DeFartment of the

Tucson, Arizona,` Public Schools, 1974.

Strom,, R.D. and Slaughter, 4-1.B., The Develcment of the PRAT

Inventbry." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

sAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco,

California, April 21, 1976'.Strom,,R.D. and Slaughter, H.B., "Measuremen: of Childrearing

E?Tectations Using the. Parent as a Teacher :nventory."

Jburnal of Experimental Education. 1978, 2.5, 44-53.

Strom, R.D. and Johnson, A. "TheParent as a Teacher,"

Educat.ion, 1974, Ao. 40-43.

Johnson,,Orval G. Tests and Measurements in child Development

Handbook II; volume 2, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

1976, pp. 829-831.

CO:'ENTS

I

ti

- 9.8 -

TITLE It

.,

Parental, A ttitude Checklist.

.

arnitAl\

. .

R.D. Boyd and K.A. Stauber.

.

.

.

_ ..

DISTRISUTIONSOURCE,

. .A

,

Cooperative Educational Srvice Agency 12412 E. Slifer St. ,

Box 56A ,

Portage, Wisconsin 53901 .

\.

DATE OF AVELOPMENT

.,

me

1977 ..\.

.

,

t

a

COPYRIGHT DATES. . .

.

Material not copyrighted. .

MATERIALS AND COSTS.1

,

Material dya4able.without'charge.

.

. .4

PURPOSE . '

.. ..II,

To assess parent attitudes and knowledge abput teachingand child management technic A

..

. _

. .

. .

t.

WHO IS EVALIATED '

(Child or Parent)- .

\.-.

Parent-

, .

,$

.

SPECIAL FEATURES OFTARGET POPULATION

.

The instrument wasdeveloped,fOr use by home teachers $p anindividualized'program for families, with a pl'eschool handi-

capped child after S-liierature search'revealed t at noappropriate instrument was available.

.

FORMAT

k

.

I

Parents rate their attitudes and behavioral,reactites to 21specific teaching and.child management situations along a5-point scale ranging from "never" to ,ways."

..

.

\ 4

4 ..0

't,

HOW ADMINISTERED .

(Including Home)

e.

,,.(..

Self- explanatory form to be administered on ayre--/post-test'''basis d

.

. .

.

.

. \ \ % , .,' ,,

.1 '- ...

.-) - . --.

.

WHO ADMINISTERS,

1 ..

Self-aelMinistered .'

x 1 00

1:99-

TRAINCNQNECESSARY FORADM IN I STRAT ION

None. In the original research, the checklist was

administered by-a research assistant.

TIME TO ADMINISTER

r

CONTE-2g:

S1SBTESTS

15 minutes

The chdcklist measures parents' knowledge of/participatign in

child management techniques and teaching. More important

dimensions incrude reinforcement, correction and 'use of

kinstructional aids . Parents .are asked about their role as

teacher, their self=confidence, and theix attitudes. toward

- chi ld discipline.

4

GOALS FOR 'gl-iICF(INSTRUkECT ISAPPROPRIATE

(Cleck WhereApplicable)

Focus' Toward Child:

Cl) / X / Change, in Knowledge

(.2) X / Change in Attitude

C3) / X / Change in Function

Focus Toward School Services and Rersohnel:

t4) Change in Knowledge ./ /

(5) Change in Attitude1 /

(6) .Change in Function/ /

FocUs ,Toward Personal Needs of parents as :

Chapge in Knowledge

-Change inAttitiade*.,.

Change in Function

I

-100-

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARES7 CHANGE ANDCHILD CHANGE

The authors maintain of this and the Parentai Behavior In-ventory (p. 104) that: "While- the ultimate effects must bedemonstrable gains in child response, the staying power andpreventive capability of early intervention programs hingesupon the acquisition and generalization of appropriateparental teaching and child management behaviors. If parentsacquire more appropriate teaching and child management be-haviors, and these are.endurin'g changein their rofertoire,then perhaps we will begin to approxithate preventatiVe pro-gramming." Emphasis is placed upon assessing.parent;,:childfinteractions in terms of an Antecedent-Behavior-ConsequentModel, where parental antecedent and consequent events Wyeto evoke and maintain child Behavior.

FORMAT FOR. .

PRESENTATION OFRES:JLTS

Ratings yielded Wthe ch- list fer r presentative kloWledgeof the parent's stren,g s and we nesses, and help kndicatespecific responses th can be argeted'orchange.

INFORMATIONAVAIL1KBLE FOR

ADMINISTRATIONAND, USE

See "Guidelines for Administration" aVailable from Boyd and

Stallber.

TECHNICAL QUALITY::

STANDARDIZATIONKEfIAILITY ANDVALIDITY

e

Reliability:

To assess inter-rater reliability, a random samp e of know- .

.ledge measures, was independently scored by both e researchassistant and a program staff school psychologist. The

Pearson produce-moment statistic yielded an inter -ratercoefficient of .95 on 'pre-test and .96 on post.ttest. Intra-rater' reldability on a sample of questionnaires was fouhd to "be':92 on pre-test and .98 on post-test.

Validity:

There has been no other technical work to

I-

v

t

Air

CULTURAL.

cosirERATIoNs

I-101-

..

Cultural issues do not seem to have been important in the

development aid implementation of the instrument.'10

,

POTeTIALUSES

Data provided by the checklist offer a basis for exami ninggroup differences as a result of different illerventions.'

However, the developers.now believe that Lhe instrumdnt is

not very discriminative.

I

REFERENCES

A

COMENTS

S

Related Research

A., Parent Behavior Inventory:CESA 12, Portage, WI, April 1977.

,,Boyd, R.D.aTd Stauber, K.Portage Parent Program,

Boyd, R.D., Stauber; K.A.Manual: Portage Patent

Morn 1977-7

, and Bluma, Instructor's,0

Progtam, CESA 12, Portage, WI,

Shearer -,- M.S. and ShETer, Er.E.-, "The Portage. Project.: A

Model for Early Childhood Education."' Exceptional Children,,

1972, 39, 210-217,

Johnson, C.A. and Katz'l RAC., "Usillg Parents

for Their Children: A Review." Journal of

and Psychiatry, 1973, 14; 181-200.

Reviews:'

No published reviews available' to date

`as Change, Agents

Child Psychology

ft,

Boyd and Stauberthave also developed the Parental Behavior

Inventory.

I

-102-

.

TITLE ,

,

s .

Parental Behavior Inventory .

..

/

.

.

AUTHOR

.

.

,

A

.

R.D. Boyd and K.A. Stauber t

e

.

.._

,

DISTRIBUZION SOURCE

.

.

,

-

Cooperative Educational Service Agency 12412 E. Slifer St., Box 564Portage, Wisconsin 53901 .

,.

.%

..

DATE OF DEVELOPMENT_

-..

' '

1977 .

.

COPYRIGHT' DATES.

,

. ,

,1977

. .

'

MATERIALS AND COSTS

.

.

,

Five copies of instructional materials (parent readings) andfive inventories 0$18.00, Instructor's set of p instruc-tor's manual, 1 book of parent readings%and 1 inventory$10.00. -

)

._.\ . , .

PURPOSE,

.

...-

To help structure the home teacher's assessme nt of'theparent's skills in both teaching and child management ...,

,'

Offers a systtmati-t procedure to account for the, amount ortype of teaching an'd management skills acquired by parents

_.--

WHO IS EVALUATED.(Ciaild or Parent)

Parent, irt role as child's primary teacher .

t ,

---

.

SPECIAL FUTURES OFTARGET,POPULATION

,

!,c

. . . ,.The instrument was developed for use by hdril6 teaches in anindividualizedvidualized program for-families with a preschool'handicapped child. .

i.

,

FORMAT ', .

r

I

.

.

.

. .

The instrument consists of an 80-item checklist. Home .

teachers obse'rve and informally rate parental performancealong an aru of teaching and management behavior.

. 1 .

,

..

i -.I

HOW,ADMIKISTERED(Inclu4ing Home)

r.

il

./

,. . . .,

Home teacher codes parent's behavior in home. .

.'..

,- ..

')

. .

. ,

4HG ADMINISTERS_

:

, v_...

Home teacher..

.....

. (10,1 ..

.%

-103-

.

I TRAININGNECESSARY FOR '

AMINISTRATION-,

lb,

\used

. .

The instrument ,can be administered:by professionals or para-.

professionals if adequate training is proiat4 rThe developers

2-1/2 days of pre-service and inservice training', which. in-

cluded the use 'of videotapes for practice in coding behavior.,.

I TIME TO ADMINISTER-

C.

About 10"min'utes. The adminitratibh time varies, depending on

the particular behavi8r the ohLer.ifee chooses to' code.

apt..

I

k-

CONTENT:.

I -SUBTESTS

.,

.

.

I.

I.1

'Management'

.

\The Inventory measures knowledge of and participation in child

techniques, and teaching. The home teacher codes the

frequency of a variety of teaching behavior used b the par-

ent: ,materials used; uie. of reinforcement *aA punish nt;

olanning,...giving_ arections*,, and recording progress.

... . a

, ,

. a -

.

. .

.. .

, . 4.- r

.

.

1,

.

I :,

1GOALS FOR WHICHINSTRUnENT IS

IAPPROPRIATE,1

(Check Where

Applicable)

'''i,.

5...

Ns e'

.

.

,

. s.

I Focus Toward Child:'! , ,

(1) / X / Change in.Knoizledge ___

(2) ,./ X / Change in AttitudgJ t,

.,(3)7X I -Change in Function ,, .

.

I '.

.i

Focus Toward School Services and Personnel.:,

. ,..

( 4 ) / A/ Change in Knowledge, \

..

.

Cs). / /. Change in Attitude , , s7:77;\.,. , ..... .

(6) / / Change in- Function. 1-

-

.

Focus Toward Personal Needs ,of Parents as Adults-!

(7) 14-7 Change. in Knowledge

(8) J / Change in Attitude .

-o . .. .

(9) / '/ Change in Function .

II.,

. .. .

,.

,. _

5

_ -104-

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARENtCHANGE ANDCHILD CHANGE

FORMAT FORPRESENTATION OFRESULTS.

Seecoulents on the Parental Attitude Checklist by tliesame adlhors (pg. 100).

4Malioxir

44".1

ret:

Ratings yielded by the Inventory offer representative knowledgeof the parents' strengths and'weaknesses, and help indicatespecific respOnses that can be targeted for change. The devel-

opers recommend that the observer select a particular behavioras the target for change, and compare frequency counts of thebehavior pre- and ppst-intervention in order to document any

changes.

IAFOR?.MIONAVAILABLE FOR

ADMINISTRATIOSAND USE

Instructor's manualBehavior code definitions

TECHNICAL QUALITY:

STANDARDIZATIONULIABILITY AND.VALIDITY

Reliability: ,A trained observer accompanied home teachers ona sample of home visits to determine the accuracy of home

teachers independently recording parent behavior.

Validity: There has been no other t:c-TIrical work to date.

Because the Inventory was developed as an observation

not all the items are always scored. Hence, it has undergone

no standardization work.

10t;

-105-

CJITURALCeNSIDERATIONS_

-Cultural issues d6 not seem to have ben important in thdevelopment and impleme4tion of the instrument. .

So

Si

POTENTIALUSE5

hide tne actual extent of use is not known, it appears to be

popular, as the developers.report that several thousand Copies

of the materials hae.been sold. Data provided by the Inven-

tory offer a basis for :ombining a prescriptive-te"achingtadl.with systematic parent training. The authors believe '

that this approach -- intervention 1.i.th both parent and child

as an interactive syste: -- holds great promise for programs

aimed'at disadvantaged 'r child abuse populations.

RiFERENCES

Related Research

Boyd, R.D., f Stauber; K.A. Parent Behavior Inventory:

Portage Parent Program, CESA 12, Portage; WI, Apryl 1977.

ABoyd, RD., Stauber, K.; & Bluma, S.M.; Instructor's

Manual:. Portage Parent program, CESA 12, Portage; WI,

April 1977.

Shearer, M.S. f Shearer, D.E., "The Portage Project: -A

Model for Early Chilc:hood Education." Excep4ional Chil-

dren, 1972, 39, 210-217.

Johnson, C.A., E Kat:, R.C., "Using Parents as/Change Agents

for Their Children: A Review,',' Journal of Chil&-Ps'ychology

ans Psychiatry, 1973, 14, 181-200.

Reviews

,

Nopublished reviews available to date

COMMENTS Boyd and Stauber have also developed the Parental Attitude

Checklist.

1074

-107-

REFERENCES

,>

Adair, T., & Eckstein,'E, Parents and the,day care center. New York:

Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, 1969.

.

.,

.

Apling,,e R., & Bryk, A.S. Evaluation.fof improving early _,childhood Title I

7' programs. Cambridge,, MA: The7Huron Instit te,.. 1980.

Becker; W. Parents are teachers. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press Company

, 1971.

Boyd, R.D., & Stauber, K.A. Parent attitude checklist. Portage, Wisconsin:

Cooperative/Education Servise Agency, 1977.8..

101111.0

Boyer. E.. Simon. A., & Karafin. G. (Hsi, Mpaurpc of matnr*tion: An

anthology of early childhood observation instruments Philadelphia: .

Research for Better Schools, 1973. 8.

$randt, R.M. Studying behavior in natural settings. New York:_ Holt,

- ,Rinehart and Winston, 1972.. .

..

Brown, J., Sitts, M., & Yarborough, J. ERIC: What it casn do for you and

hov you can use it. Stanford,`CA.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information

Resources, 1975.

Bryk, Apling, R. , & Mathews, R.O. Developing an evaluation sys ;em for.

early childhood ESEA Title I: A feasibility analysis. Cambiid2e, MA:

TheHuron Institute, 1978.

Bureau of Education for the ifandicapped. Interim handicapped children's

early education program (HCEEP). Overview and directory. Author, 1978.

Caldwell, ,8. Evaluating prograq effectiveness. -In B.M. Caldwell & D.J.

Stedman (Eds.), Infant ucation. New York: Walker and Company, 1677. -

$

.

Caldwell, B., & Stedman. Infant education: 'A QU1 :for,helping handicapped

children in the first three years. aviy,York: Walker and Company, 1977.

Caldwell, B., & Bradley.-,Home observation for measurement of the environ-,

ment: A validation study of screening efficiency. American-Journal

NI of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 81(5), 417-420. . .

..

.

Carin, P.F. Observation.

and.description: An alternative methodology for

.k,... . the investigation e..human pherromena. Grand Forks, N'.D.: 'North Dakota

'Study Group on Evaluation, University of North takota, 1975.

./

Datter, L. Parent involvement in the United States, In Center for Educational

Research and Innovation (Ed.), Developments in early-hil4hood education.

. Paris: Organization fox Economic Cooperation and Development. 1975, 38-48.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. P.L. No: 94-142,

89 Stat 773.#

-i08-

40,Epstein, A.S.; Schwartz, P., 6 Meece, J. The mutual problem solving task:Development, instrument procedures, and reliability. Ypsilanti, MI:High Scope Research FoUndation, 1977.

Financial assistance to local educational agencies to meet the specialeducational needs of educationallyrdeprived, and neglected anddelinquent children--evaluation requirements. Proposed rules.Federal Register, February 7, 1979, 44(27), 7914-7919.

Financial assistance-to local eduCational agencies to meet the special°40, educational. needs of educationally deprived, and neglected and

delinquent children--evaluation requirements. Final regulations.Federal'Register, October 12, 1979, 44(199), 59152-59159.

Garrett, A. .Interviewini: Its principles and methods. New York: FamilyService Association of America; 1972.

Georgiades,-W. How good is your school? Reston, 1':: The National Associationof Secondary School Principals, 197S.

Giese, A guide for home visitors. Nashville, enn.: DARCEG,George-2eabody',College, 1970.

Goodwin, W.L., 41_ istoll, L.A. Handbook for measurement and evaluationiv early dildhoocr4ducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Vass, 1980.

Gray, S.W., 4,Wandersan, L.P. The methodology of home-based interventionstudies: Problems and promising strategies. Child Develor-.ent. 1980,51, 99.5 -1009:

4

Haney, W. Short-term impact evaluations of earl)! childhood Title I programs.Cambridge', MA: The Huron Institute, 1950.

Haney, W.; F Gelberg, W. Assessment in early childhood education. Cambridge,. MA: The HuronJnstitute, 1980.

v. I v.. Haney,, -W., Schodlatz, D., Walker, ., & Weiss, S. ESEA Title I early child-hood education. . Review of literature on evaluation and instrumentation.Cambridge, :14:* The Huron Institute, ,1980.

Hewett, K.D. . Partners with parents: The Home Start experience with pre-ancl-their families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

-He1th; Education and Welfare, Administration for Children, Youth andthe Families, 1979.

Hudson, W.W. Index of parental attitudes. Hawaii: University of.Hawaiiat anaa, 1976, /.

Kagan, J., '5 Noss, H.A. Birth to maturity: A study in psychological

Development. New-York: Wiley, 1962.-

:_itzer, J. _Parent involvement, the elixiral change. In McFadden (Ed.),Planning for actions. Washington, D.C.: National Association forthe Education:of Young' Children, 1971.

. 1 0

e

-109-

Levenstein, D. MCHP/VIP: Mother-child home program of the Verbal Inter-

action Project. Submission for review by the Joint DisseminAion Review

Panel of the U.S, Office of,Educati.on, National Institute of Education.

1978.

Levenstein, P. Home based programs: Nightmare or dream of the future:

Paper presented atthe Society for Research in Child Development.

San Francisco, 1979.

( Lilly, D.L., F, Trohanis, P.L% (Eds,). Teaching parents to teach. New

York: Walker & Company, 1976; \ce

Murphy, G.T. Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluation and

policy. analysis. Santa Monica, CA:, Goodyear Publishing COmpany, 1980..

4

Murphy, L.B., & Moriarity, ,Vulnerability, coping, and growth. New

Haven,,Conn.: Yale University Press, ]976.

9

National Study of School Evaluation. Elementary school evaluation criteria.

Arlington, VA: Author41973.

Parent Attitude Research Instrument. Glasse;-Radin Revision. Ann Arbor,

MI: University of 4,ichigan; 1965.

Radin, N., & Weikart, D. Cognitive Home Environment Scale. Ann ArbOr,

MI: University of Michigan, 4\966.

R>611, W. Blaming the victim. New York: Random House, 1971.

Schlossman, S. The parent education game: The politics of child psychology

in the 1970s. Teachers CollegeiRecord, No. 4, 19,79..

kStrom, R. Parents as a teacher inventory. Temp, Arizona: Arizona State,

University, 1978. vs.

Systems Development Corporation. Forms clearance package for a study of

parental involvement in four federal education programs. Office of

Evaluation and Dissemination, 1979.

United States Office of Education. Education programs that work. San

Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Resear h and

Development, 1978.

9